Floris Bruynooghe <floris.bruynooghe <at> gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 08:53:18PM -0800, Michael Mysinger wrote:
> > I don't know what notation this versioning schema was trying for, especially
in regards to what the +'s mean:
> > N.N[.N]+[abc]N[.N]+[.postN+][.devN+]
> >
> The full regex (stripped from named groups) is the rather unreadable:
> \d+\.\d+(\.\d+)*([abc]?\d+(\.\d+)*)?((\.post\d+)?(\.dev\d+)?)?
The ()? around the combination of post and dev is not needed. I also think
[abc]? should just be [abc], as one letter is required to proceed the digit in
that case, and the full regular expression does help to distinguish exactly
which of those two is required by the PEP.
> So the '+' in the pseudo notation above roughly means "one or more"
> with the brackets meaning "zero or one" so plus and brackets combined
> result into "zero or more". But even then it's might be missing
> square brackets around the whole of "[abc]N[.N]+".
What is confusing about the +'s is that they are not consistent. If your regular
expression with my modifications above is right, then using the substitions 'N
for \d+', '{} for []', '[] for ()?' and '+ for *' leaves:
N.N[.N]+[{abc}N[.N]+][.postN][.devN]
Notice that the last two +'s are gone, and overall I think this is more
consistent psuedo-code.
> Note that the meaning of the contents of the brackets changes too
> ("abc" is a choice, .postN+ is the recursive notation) so it'll
> probably never work exactly. So maybe the PEP should also include the
> full regex for exactness.
>
> Regards
> Floris
Yes, it probably should have the full regex for absolute clarity, and it can
still have some type of psuedo-code for easier reading, but inconsistent
psuedo-code just adds confusion instead of simplification.
Cheers,
Michael
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
