2007/10/5, Mark Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Although re.substitute() would work (and be better than sub), I think > re.replace() is better and more consistent regarding the rest of the > library.
+1, happened twice to me, different jobs, that a colleague came to me asking why there was no "replace" in "re". Yes, sub() is even difficult to find (unless you *read* all the descriptions of the methods). Regards, -- . Facundo Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/ PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/ _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
