On Jan 25, 3:41 pm, Duncan Booth <duncan.bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 25, 2:17ÿpm, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Rick Johnson > > >> Did you read the very first sentence of the re module documentation? > >> "This module provides regular expression matching operations *similar > >> to those found in Perl*" (my emphasis). ÿThe goal here is > >> compatibility with existing RE syntaxes, not readability. ÿPerl uses > >> the (?...) syntax, so the re module does too. > > > @Duncan and Ian: > > Did you not read the title of my post? :o) " Python regular expression > > syntax is not intuitive." While i understand WHERE the syntax > > orientations from, that fact does not solve the problem. The syntax is > > not intuitive, and Python should ALWAYS be intuitive! We should always > > borrow ideas from anyone (even our enemies) when those ideas support > > our ideology. Perl style regexes are not Pythonic. They violate our > > philosophy in too many places. > > Or we could implement de-facto standards where they exist.
Are you so naive as to think that the Perl folks are even *slightly* interested in intuitive regexps? Have you written, or even read, any Perl code my friend? The *standards* are broken. Obviously they don't care, or they prefer the esoteric nature of their cryptic creation. > *plonk* And good day to you. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
