On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
> > These are reasons why both Ezio and I suggested on the tracker adding regex > without deleting re. (I personally would not mind just replacing re with > regex, but then I have no legacy re code to break. So I am not suggesting > that out of respect for those who do.) > I would actually prefer to replace re. Before doing that we should make a list of all the differences between the two modules (possibly in the PEP). On the regex page on PyPI there's already a list that can be used for this purpose [0]. For bug fixes it *shouldn't* be a problem if the behavior changes. New features shouldn't bring any backward-incompatible behavioral changes, and, as far as I understand, Matthew introduced the NEW flag [1], to avoid problems when they do. I think re should be kept around only if there are too many incompatibilities left and if they can't be fixed in regex. Best Regards, Ezio Melotti [0]: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/regex/0.1.20110717 [1]: "The NEW flag turns on the new behaviour of this module, which can differ from that of the 're' module, such as splitting on zero-width matches, inline flags affecting only what follows, and being able to turn inline flags off."
_______________________________________________ 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
