Matthew Barnett added the comment:
> > - (!ctx->match_all || ctx->ptr == state->end)) {
> > + ctx->ptr == state->end) {
>
> Why this check is not needed anymore?
>
After stepping through the code for that regex that fails, I concluded
that the condition shouldn't depend on ctx->match_all at that point
after all.
> > - status = SRE(match)(state, pattern + 2*prefix_skip);
> > + status = SRE(match)(state, pattern + 2*prefix_skip,
> state->match_all);
>
> > - status = SRE(match)(state, pattern + 2);
> > + status = SRE(match)(state, pattern + 2, state->match_all);
>
> state->match_all is used but it is never initialized.
I thought I'd initialised it in all the places it's used.
I admit that I find the code a little hard to follow at times... :-(
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue20998>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
