> obviously pretty huge backwards compatibility issues for grammars > written based on current semantics; I'd suggest leaving it be. > >
This is what versions are for, just make a major version bump. -- Kurtis Rainbolt-Greene Difference Engineers 643 Magazine St STE #102, New Orleans, LA 70130 202-643-2263 On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > I think it's unclear if the UI would be improved, but it would have > obviously pretty huge backwards compatibility issues for grammars > written based on current semantics; I'd suggest leaving it be. > > You could perhaps add some other method that's 1-or-ore (regex '+'), > leaving `repeat` along as 0-or-more (regex '*'). > > On 10/3/2012 3:05 AM, Kaspar Schiess wrote: > > Hi Kurtis, > > > > > Ah-ha, I always forget that repeat defaults to 0. > > > > Should we change it? As in: would the UI of parslet be improved by this > > change? > > > > kaspar
