Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset 7c667d8ae10d by Serhiy Storchaka in branch 'default':
Issue #22818: Splitting on a pattern that could match an empty string now
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/7c667d8ae10d
--
nosy: +python-dev
___
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Thank you Ezio and Berker for your reviews.
--
resolution: - fixed
stage: patch review - resolved
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22818
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
May be RuntimeWarning or FutureWarning are more appropriate?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22818
___
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
I hesitate about warning type. Originally I was going to emit a
DeprecationWarning in 3.5, may be change it to a UserWarning in 3.6, and raise
a ValueError or change behavior in 3.7. What would be better?
--
___
Ezio Melotti added the comment:
DeprecationWarning: Base class for warnings about deprecated features.
UserWarning: Base class for warnings generated by user code.
RuntimeWarning: Base class for warnings about dubious runtime behavior.
FutureWarning: Base class for warnings about constructs that
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Thank you Ezio for your review. Updated patch includes most of your
suggestions. But I think some places still can be dim.
--
Added file:
http://bugs.python.org/file37863/re_deprecate_split_zero_width_3.patch
___
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Updated patch includes Ezio's suggestions. Thank you Ezio, they looks great to
me.
--
Added file:
http://bugs.python.org/file37864/re_deprecate_split_zero_width_4.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Could anyone please make a review (mainly documentation)? It would be good to
get this change in first alpha.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22818
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Now patterns which could match only an empty string (e.g. '(?m)^$' or
'(?=\w-)(?=\w)') are rejected at all. They never worked with current regex
engine. Updated the documentation.
Could anyone please make a review and correct my wording. It is desirable to
Antoine Pitrou added the comment:
I don't really understand why this is definitely a bug.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22818
___
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
Because users expect that split() supports zero-width patterns (as sub()
supports them) and regexps in other languages support splitting on zero-width
patterns. This looks as accidental implementation detail (see my patch in
issue22817 -- the difference is
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
I there are no objections I'm going to commit the patch soon.
--
assignee: - serhiy.storchaka
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue22818
___
New submission from Serhiy Storchaka:
For now re.split doesn't split with zero-width regex. There are a number of
issues for this (issue852532, issue988761, issue3262, issue22817). This is
definitely a bug, but fixing this bug will likely break existing code which use
regular expressions
13 matches
Mail list logo