.compile()
is called with the same input pattern it will return the exact same
object rather than a second, identical, object. In interactive tests
via python shell this seems to be the case but... can I rely on it -
always- being the case? Or is it one of those implementation-specific
issues?
I
alex23 wrote:
> On Mar 20, 1:42 am, "Emanuele D'Arrigo" wrote:
> > I just had a bit of a shiver for something I'm doing often in my code
> > but that might be based on a wrong assumption on my part. Take the
> > following code:
> >
> > pattern = "aPattern"
> >
> > compiledPatterns = [ ]
> > compi
On Mar 20, 1:42 am, "Emanuele D'Arrigo" wrote:
> I just had a bit of a shiver for something I'm doing often in my code
> but that might be based on a wrong assumption on my part. Take the
> following code:
>
> pattern = "aPattern"
>
> compiledPatterns = [ ]
> compiledPatterns.append(re.compile(pat
"Emanuele D'Arrigo" wrote:
> Thank you everybody for the informative replies.
>
> I'll have to comb my code for all the instances of "item in sequence"
> statement because I suspect some of them are as unsafe as my first
> example. Oh well. One more lesson learned.
You may have far fewer unsafe
Thank you everybody for the informative replies.
I'll have to comb my code for all the instances of "item in sequence"
statement because I suspect some of them are as unsafe as my first
example. Oh well. One more lesson learned.
Thank you again.
Manu
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/py
ile()
is called with the same input pattern it will return the exact same
object rather than a second, identical, object. In interactive tests
via python shell this seems to be the case but... can I rely on it -
always- being the case? Or is it one of those implementation-specific
issues?
As MRAB
is called with the same input pattern it will return the exact same
> object rather than a second, identical, object. In interactive tests
> via python shell this seems to be the case but... can I rely on it -
> always- being the case? Or is it one of those implementation-specific
> i
Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote:
[snip]
If the answer is no, am I right to state the in the case portrayed
above the only way to be safe is to use the following code instead?
for item in compiledPatterns:
if(item.pattern == pattern):
print("The compiled pattern is stored.")
break
Co
the same input pattern it will return the exact same
object rather than a second, identical, object. In interactive tests
via python shell this seems to be the case but... can I rely on it -
always- being the case? Or is it one of those implementation-specific
issues?
The re module has a cache of pa
me
object rather than a second, identical, object. In interactive tests
via python shell this seems to be the case but... can I rely on it -
always- being the case?
If the answer is no, am I right to state the in the case portrayed
above the only way to be safe is to use the following code instead?
hon shell this seems to be the case but... can I rely on it -
always- being the case? Or is it one of those implementation-specific
issues?
And what about any other function or class/method? Is there a way to
discriminate between methods and functions that when invoked twice
with the same arguments w
11 matches
Mail list logo
