On 10 Mar 2013, at 9:29 AM, Massimo Di Pierro <massimo.dipie...@gmail.com> wrote: > I do not have a strong opinion but I do not see a problem with > unconditionally decoding. Shall I wait for a patch?
I wrote too soon! I won't have a patch right away, because a) I'm at SXSW with little time, and b) I think it needs at least a bunch of test cases to make sure. Does a string-oriented (non-re.U) regex operate as expected if its target string is decoded? If so, then unconditional should be fine. > > On Thursday, 7 March 2013 17:54:12 UTC-6, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > I have something like IS_MATCH(ur'(?u)[\w ]+', strict=True) for a field. > > I added the re.U override because I needed to enter Ballarò and Agorà. Oddly, > it accepted Ballarò, but not Agorà. > > I *think* what's going on is that IS_MATCH ends up looking at the UTF-8 > string, not the Unicode string, when it applies the regex. Does that seem > plausible? If so, should we be unconditionally decoding such strings in > validators, or does IS_MATCH (and perhaps others?) need an explicit option? > > -- > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
