Dave Cinege wrote: >> It's already there. It's called shlex.split(), and follows the >> semantic of a standard UNIX shell, including escaping and other >> things. > > Not quite. As I said in my other post, simple is the idea for this, > just like the split method itself. (no escaping, etc.....just > recognizing delimiters as an exception to the split seperatation)
And what's the actual problem? You either have a syntax which does not support escaping or one that it does. If it can't be escaped, there won't be any weird characters in the way, and shlex.split() will do it. If it does support escaping in a decent way, you can either use shlex.split() directly or modify the string before (like I've shown in the other message). In any case, you get your job done. Do you have any real-world case where you are still not able to split a string? And if you do, are they really so many to warrant a place in the standard library? As I said before, I think that split() and shlex.split() cover the majority of real world usage cases. > shlex.split() does not let one choose the separator > or use a maxsplit Real-world use case? Show me what you need to parse, and I assume this weird format is generated by a program you have not written yourself (or you could just change it to generate a more standard and simple format!) > , nor is it a pure method to strings. This is a totally different problem. It doesn't make it less useful nor it does provide a need for adding a new method to the string. -- Giovanni Bajo _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
