On 1/25/2012 20:24, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> If all you're going to change is the parser, maybe it'd be easier to
> get things to coexist if parsers were pluggable in the re module.
>
> It's more generally useful, too. Would let re gain a PyParsing/SNOBOL
> like expression "syntax", for example. O
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:17:11 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> 2) Permitting flags in the regular expression allows different
> combinations of flags to be in effect for different parts of complex
> regular expressions. You can't do that just by passing in the flags as
> an argument.
I don't believe Pyt
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:44:35 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> I've posted my thoughts and my initial syntax. You (and everyone else)
> are free to critic or offer suggestions of your own. Listen, none of
> these issues that plague Python are going to be resolved until people
> around here set aside th
On Jan 25, 8:24 pm, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Rick Johnson
>
> wrote:
> > It is germane in the fact that i believe PyParsing, re, and my new
> > regex module can co-exist in harmony.
>
> If all you're going to change is the parser, maybe it'd be easier to
> get th
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> It is germane in the fact that i believe PyParsing, re, and my new
> regex module can co-exist in harmony.
If all you're going to change is the parser, maybe it'd be easier to
get things to coexist if parsers were pluggable in the re module.
On 01/25/2012 06:54 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The only intuitive interface is the nipple. Everything else is learned.
I think young mothers would even disagree with that. It's learned just
like everything else in life. Albeit very rapidly.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-li
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:14:09 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> It is germane in the fact that i believe PyParsing, re, and my new regex
> module can co-exist in harmony.
You don't have a new regex module.
When you have written it, then you will have a new regex module. Until
then, you're all talk.
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:16:01 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> In particular i find the "extension notation" syntax to be woefully
> inadequate. You should be able to infer the action of the extension
> syntax intuitively, simply from looking at its signature. I find myself
> continually needing to con
On Jan 25, 5:36 pm, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Rick Johnson
>
> wrote:
> > I disagree here.
> > Whist some people may be "die-hard" fans of the un-intuitive perl
> > regex syntax, i believe many, if not exponentially MORE people would
> > like to have a better alternative
On Jan 25, 5:28 pm, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> Perhaps you should perform some experiments to prove intuitiveness [of your
> syntax]?
I've posted my thoughts and my initial syntax. You (and everyone else)
are free to critic or offer suggestions of your own. Listen, none of
these issues that plagu
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> I disagree here.
> Whist some people may be "die-hard" fans of the un-intuitive perl
> regex syntax, i believe many, if not exponentially MORE people would
> like to have a better alternative. Do i want to remove the current
> "well establishe
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> In particular i find the "extension notation" syntax to be woefully
> inadequate. You should be able to infer the action of the extension
> syntax intuitively, simply from looking at its signature.
This is nice in theory. I see no reason to
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Duncan Booth
wrote:
> The problem with your idea is that it breaks compatability with other non-
> Python regular expression engines. Python didn't invent the (?...) syntax,
> it originated with Perl.
>
> Try complaining to a Perl group instead.
The Perl folks did
On Jan 25, 3:41 pm, Duncan Booth wrote:
> Rick Johnson wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 2:17ÿpm, Ian Kelly 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
Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2:17ÿpm, Ian Kelly 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 emphasi
On Jan 25, 2:17 pm, Ian Kelly 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). The goal here is
> compat
On 1/25/2012 12:16 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
(?...) # Base Extension Syntax
All extensions are wrapped in parenthesis and start with a question
mark, but i believe the question mark was a very bad choice, since the
I think that syntax came either from Perl or the pcre library used by
several o
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> (?...) # Base Extension Syntax
> All extensions are wrapped in parenthesis and start with a question
> mark, but i believe the question mark was a very bad choice, since the
> question mark is already specific to "zero or one repetitions of
Rick Johnson wrote:
> (?...) # Base Extension Syntax
> All extensions are wrapped in parenthesis and start with a question
> mark, but i believe the question mark was a very bad choice, since the
> question mark is already specific to "zero or one repetitions of
> preceding RE". This simple erro
On Jan 25, 11:16 am, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> {!()...} or (!...) # Non Capturing.
Yuck: on second thought, i don't like {!()...}, mainly because non-
capturing groups should use the parenthesis delimiters to keep the API
consistent. Try this instead --> (!:...)
> {NG=identifier...} # Named Group
20 matches
Mail list logo
