Ben Wing wrote:
> the only strangeness here is the numbering of groups starting at 1, and
> making 0 be a special case. this isn't any more (or less) of a problem
> for the indexing form than it is for m.group(), and it's well known from
> various other languages. we could always consider making groups start
> at 0 for python 3000, but this seems to me like a gratuitous
> incompatibility with the rest of the world.
As Greg pointed out, this is just a special case of the fact that subgroups
can be nested with the ordering governed by the location of the left
parenthesis:
.>>> import re
.>>> m = re.match("a(b(c))", "abc")
.>>> m.group(0)
'abc'
.>>> m.group(1)
'bc'
.>>> m.group(2)
'c'
That said, I like the definitions in your last message:
len(m) == 1 + len(m.groups())
m[:] == [m.group(0)] + m.groups()
all(m[i] == m.group(i) for i in range(len(m)))
all(m[k] == m.group(k) for k in m.groupdict().keys())
The internally inconsistent* m.group() and m.groups() methods could even be
slated for removal in Py3k (replaced by the subscript operations).
Cheers,
Nick.
*The inconsistency being that group() considers the whole match to be group 0,
while groups() does not.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
