Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset 7ab07f15d78c by Serhiy Storchaka in branch '3.3':
Issue #2537: Remove breaked check which prevented valid regular expressions.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/7ab07f15d78c
New changeset f4271cc2dfb5 by Serhiy Storchaka in branch 'default':
Issue
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +serhiy.storchaka
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2537
___
___
Changes by Ramchandra Apte maniandra...@gmail.com:
--
components: +Library (Lib) -Regular Expressions
versions: +Python 3.4
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2537
___
Changes by Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: -mark.dickinson
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2537
___
___
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:
--
components: +Regular Expressions
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2537
___
___
Matthew Barnett pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com added the comment:
The re module is addressed in issue #2636.
BTW, my regex module behaves like Ruby:
regex.sub(r((x|y)*)*, (\\1, \\2), xyyzy, count=1)
'(, y)zy'
regex.sub(r((x|y+)*)*, (\\1, \\2), xyyzy, count=1)
'(, yy)zy'
--
nosy:
Meador Inge mead...@gmail.com added the comment:
The re module is addressed in issue #2636.
Wow, that issue thread is massive... What about the 're' module is addressed?
Is 'regex' replacing 're'? Is 'regex' being rolled into 're'? Are they both
going to exist?
--
components:
Matthew Barnett pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com added the comment:
The issue started about updating the re module and adding features that other
languages already possess in their regex implementations (the last time any
significant work was done on it was in 2003).
The hope is that the new regex
Meador Inge mead...@gmail.com added the comment:
Ruby's behavior seems best to me.
We can obtain the Ruby behavior easily. There is one check in sre_compile.py
in the '_simple' function that needs to be removed (see attached patch).
Whether or not the Ruby behavior is the correct behavior
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +ezio.melotti
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue2537
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Changes by Jeffrey C. Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--
nosy: +timehorse
versions: +Python 2.7 -Python 2.6
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2537
___
Changes by Russ Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--
nosy: +rsc
__
Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue2537
__
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Mark Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I'm almost tempted to call the first of these a bug: isn't '((x|y)*)*'
a perfectly valid (albeit somewhat redundant) regular expression? What
am I missing here?
Even if there are issues with capturing, shouldn't the version without
capturing
Jason Orendorff [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Huh. Maybe you're right. JavaScript, Ruby, and Perl all accept both
regexes, although no two agree on what should be captured:
js xyyzy.replace(/((x|y)*)*/, ($1, $2))
(xyy, y)zy
js xyyzy.replace(/((x|y+)*)*/, ($1, $2))
(xyy, yy)zy
New submission from Jason Orendorff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Below, the second regexp seems just as guilty as the first to me.
Python 2.5.1 (r251:54869, Apr 18 2007, 22:08:04)
[GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5367)] on darwin
Type help, copyright, credits or license for more information.
15 matches
Mail list logo