On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 00:40, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote:
> [...]
>
> At a high level, pything *is* doing the same -- it uses strings to
> specify regexps, so both have the *same* syntax. So this:
>
> > That is writing strings is not exactly the same as writing "strings
> > for a regexp".
>
> is wrong -- it's the same syntax for both. (At least AFAICT.)
>
Yes, yes... I was simply forgetting about the raw-strings... when writing
regexps I tend to type r"\d{2}\b".
Raw-strings have no backlash escape sequences, so r"\d\b" => '\\d\\b'
> [...]
>
> If you get the impression that I dislike what python does with
> quoting, then that would be a correct one...
You made that enough clear.
I wouldn't fight in a fire combat for none of the languages, but I now I get
the point of Racket's design and as many other lisp-things, that does sound
like a Good Idea.
Consistent, composable, clear, easy to explain.
[]'s
Rodolfo Carvalho
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
