My 2 cents is that regular expressions are pretty un-pythonic because of their horrible readability. I would much rather see Python adopt something like Verbal Expressions ( https://github.com/VerbalExpressions/PythonVerbalExpressions ) into the standard library than add special syntax support for normal REs.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 28 March 2017 at 08:54, Simon D. <si...@acoeuro.com> wrote: > > I believe that the u"" notation in Python 2.7 is defined by while > > importing the unicode_litterals module. > > That's not true. The u"..." syntax is part of the language. from > future import unicode_literals is something completely different. > > > Each regexp lib could provide its instanciation of regexp litteral > > notation. > > The Python language has no way of doing that - user (or library) > defined literals are not possible. > > > And if only the default one does, it would still be won for the > > beginers, and the majority of persons using the stdlib. > > How? You've yet to prove that having a regex literal form is an > improvement over re.compile(r'put your regex here'). You've asserted > it, but that's a matter of opinion. We'd need evidence of real-life > code that was clearly improved by the existence of your proposed > construct. > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
