Russ Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Alexander Belopolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alexander Belopolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Russ Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > .. >> My argument is only that Python should behave the same in >> this respect as other systems that use substantially the same >> regular expressions. >> > > This is not enough to justify the change in my view. After all, "A > Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds" > <http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/>. > > I don't know if there is much code out there that relies on the > current behavior, but technically speaking, this is an incompatible > change. A backward compatible way to add your desired functionality > would be to add the "escape_special" function, but not every useful > 3-line function belongs to stdlib.
In my mind, arguing that re.escape can't possibly be changed due to imagined backward incompatibilities is the foolish consistency. > This said, I would prefer simply adding '_' to _alphanum over _special > approach, but still -1 on the whole idea. I don't use Python enough to care one way or the other. I noticed a bug, I reported it. Y'all are welcome to do as you see fit. Russ __________________________________ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue2650> __________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
