Tim Peters added the comment: I'm afraid it's just too tricky for the code to deduce that a negative lookahead assertion can imply that a later match can't be empty. But I don't know how smart the re compilation code already is ;-)
It occurs to me now that the doctest regexp could worm around this very easily, via replacing: .*$\n? with: .+$\n? The success of the negative lookahead assertion here doesn't _just_ imply that .*$\n? will match a non-empty string, it also implies that .+$ will succeed (and so also that .+$\n? will succeed). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18647> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
