On 25/04/2014 19:32, Terry Reedy wrote:
..........
I suppose that one could argue that '{' alone should be treated as special
immediately, and not just when a matching '}' is found, and should disable other
special meanings. I wonder what JS does if there is no matching '}'?
well in fact I suspect this is my mistranslation of the original
new RegExp('.{1,' + (+size) + '}', 'g')
my hacked up translator doesn't know what that means. I suspect that (+size) is
an attempt to force size to an integer prior to it being forced to a string. I
used to believe that conversion was always written 0-x, but experimentally
(+"3") ends up as 3 not "3".
Naively, I imagined that re would complain about ambiguous regular expressions,
but in the regexp world n problems --> n+1 problems almost surely so I should
have anticipated it :)
Does this in fact that almost any broken regexp specification will silently fail
because re will reset and consider any metacharacter as literal?
--
Robin Becker
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
