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 consult the docs because of the lacking or > misleading style of the current syntax. Consider:
The only intuitive interface is the nipple. Everything else is learned. Nevertheless, there are legitimate problems with Python's regex syntax. It is based on Perl's syntax, and even Larry Wall agrees that it has some serious problems. Read Apocalypse 5: Wall gives a fantastic explanation of what's wrong with current regex syntax (without such trivial platitudes as "it is not intuitive", as if we can all agree on what it intuitive), why it has become that way, and what Perl 6 will do about it. http://www.perl.com/pub/2002/06/04/apo5.html Regexes are essentially a programming language. They may or may not be Turing complete, depending on the implementation (true regexes are not, but Perl regexes are more powerful than true regexes), but they are still a programming language. And users want regexes to be concise, otherwise they would ask for richer string search methods and avoid regexes altogether. The problem is that conciseness and readability are usually (but not always) in opposition. So regexes will never be as readable as Python code, because the requirements of regexes -- that they be short, concise, and usually written as one-liners (or at least one-liners must be possible) -- do not meet Python standards of readability. How can they? Regexes are shorthand. If you want longhand, write your search in straight Python. > PS: In my eyes, Python 3000 is already a dinosaur. We look forward to seeing your re-write. I'm sure all right-thinking programmers will flock to your Python fork as soon as you start writing it. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
