LCD 47 a écrit:
> On 18 June 2013, Paul Isambert wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > The following issue has been recently discussed on the Lua mailing list:
> > http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2013-04/msg00812.html
> >
> > (It has also been independantly raised on the LuaTeX list:
> > http://tug.or
On 18 June 2013, Paul Isambert wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> The following issue has been recently discussed on the Lua mailing list:
> http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2013-04/msg00812.html
>
> (It has also been independantly raised on the LuaTeX list:
> http://tug.org/pipermail/luatex/2013-June/0044
Erik Christiansen a écrit:
> On 18.06.13 14:51, Paul Isambert wrote:
> > The “*” operator should be banned, then!
>
> Does the problem with matching empty strings arise from using "*" when
> "+" should be used instead? You are presumably aware that¹:
>
> * = 0 or more of the preceding atom.
> +
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:51:06 AM UTC-5, Paul Isambert wrote:
>
> > Doing substitutions with a pattern that matches the empty string is
>
> > not useful, in real editing tasks it's not what is wanted. One is
>
> > always trying to match *something*.
>
>
>
> The “*” operator should be bann
On 18.06.13 14:51, Paul Isambert wrote:
> The “*” operator should be banned, then!
Does the problem with matching empty strings arise from using "*" when
"+" should be used instead? You are presumably aware that¹:
* = 0 or more of the preceding atom.
+ = 1 or more of the preceding atom.
Thus "(a
John Little a écrit:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:19:43 PM UTC+12, Paul Isambert wrote:
>
> > I.e., shouldn’t it work clearly one way or the other?
>
> I don't understand this "interspersed empty substrings" way of
> looking at regexes; I suspect that it doesn't make sense some of the
> time,
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:19:43 PM UTC+12, Paul Isambert wrote:
> I.e., shouldn’t it work clearly one way or the other?
I don't understand this "interspersed empty substrings" way of looking at
regexes; I suspect that it doesn't make sense some of the time, and is not
useful, but my suspici
Sorry, this
> print re.sub(re.compile('(a*)'), '(\\1)', 'abc')
should be
print re.sub(re.compile('([ac]*)'), '(\\1)', 'abc')
Paul
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, vi
