Are you saying people should google regular expressions? in my experience (correct me if I'm wrong) that doesn't work, I've never been able to get google to return relevant results even with quotation marks.
I'm saying that usually comments are either wrong or out of date, developers code one regex, comment it, then fix a bug later and don't, then there's a discrepancy between the comment and the code. It's nearly always easier to just google the code and see what it does, if (as in this case) it's not obvious.
Google regex and you'll find plenty of resources including tools to testing patterns. You won't find much for any specific pattern but read the docs and it will be apparent what this regex does. Familiariy and competence with regex is a basic component of being a developer.
Hey, might just be me. I'm usually the 'Ben, can you help me with a regular expression' guy over here, but I stumbled, hard, and failed to connect the '-' with a range of characters (probably because I never thought of 'space to .. something').
So I read the snippet, thought 'Yeah, a character class of space, -, ~' and fell on my face in the next couple of lines.
Yeah, I should've known better, I know how to read it. If .. I invest the time and don't glance over a construct and hope to just get it instantly.
I wouldn't want to see this in a code base without proper documentation (be it a comment, a function name or whatever. Something).
Not that I agree with the "expect people reading your code to Google things" mindset, but to be fair the only ambiguous thing is the ASCII table which is Googleable.
The best code is readable. Readability includes comments. If you're going to comment anything in your code at all, RegExes should be at the very top of that list.
Even if I can figure out what the regex matches (with Google or something else), that doesn't necessarily tell me WHY I'm matching on that particular pattern, or why I needed a RegEx in this spot, or what the intent was at the time of writing it.