Hi Gustavo!,
On 4/4/2005, "Gustavo Niemeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, that would be something I'd want to discuss here. As I'm not
>> sure if I actually ~want~ to match the API of the re module.
>
>If this feature is considered a good addition for the standard
>library, integrating it
Hi Michael,
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 04:14:16PM +0100, Michael Hudson wrote:
> Asking mostly for curiousity, how hard would it be to have longs store
> their sign bit somewhere less aggravating?
As I guess your goal is to get rid of all the "if (size < 0) size = -size" in
object.c and friends, I s
Greetings Chris,
> Well, that would be something I'd want to discuss here. As I'm not
> sure if I actually ~want~ to match the API of the re module.
If this feature is considered a good addition for the standard
library, integrating it on re would be an interesting option.
But given what you say
Greetings,
> If this kind of functionality would fall on immediate rejection for
> some reason, even writing the PEP might be pointless. If the
[...]
In my opinion the functionality is useful.
> I personally think that the proposed functionality should *not* live
> in a separate module, but some
Michael Hudson wrote:
Asking mostly for curiousity, how hard would it be to have longs store
their sign bit somewhere less aggravating? It seems to me that the
top bit of ob_digit[0] is always 0, for example, and I'm sure this
would result no less convolution in longobject.c it'd be considerably
m
Asking mostly for curiousity, how hard would it be to have longs store
their sign bit somewhere less aggravating? It seems to me that the
top bit of ob_digit[0] is always 0, for example, and I'm sure this
would result no less convolution in longobject.c it'd be considerably
more localized convolut
At 08:48 AM 4/3/05 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I personally think that the proposed functionality should *not* live
in a separate module, but somehow be integrated into SRE.
+1.
Whether or
not the proposed functionality is useful in the first place, I don't
know. I never have nested named group
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Nicolas Fleury wrote:
>
[...]
Actually, I ~would~ like to limit it to just named groups.
I reckon, if you're not going to bother naming a group, then why would
you have any interest in it.
I guess its up for discussion how confusing this "new" way of thinking
could be
