Bugs item #493252, was opened at 2001-12-14 02:54
You can respond by visiting:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=493252&group_id=5470
Category: Regular Expressions
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: P. de Jong (peterdejong)
Assigned to: Fredrik Lundh (effbot)
Summary: maximum recursion limit exceeded in match
Initial Comment:
RuntimeError: maximum recursion limit exceeded
in match, while trying to match a string of 16384
bytes. (Python 2.0)
The error does not occur after eliminating some 100
characters from the string.
The error does not occur in Python 1.5.2. So I cannot
upgrade.
Peter de Jong
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: P. de Jong (peterdejong)
Date: 2001-12-17 01:02
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=402001
Tim and Guido,
I want to match things like:
"jlkjkl ""kjlklkjkl""ljk
;lkk;l";
or:
"jlkjkl ""kjlklkjkl""ljk
;lkk;l"
Maybe I can trust the embedded quotes to be doubled,
but I was not sure at the moment of writing the
expression. I do have to include newlines inside the
enclosing quotes.
Peter de Jong
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Tim Peters (tim_one)
Date: 2001-12-15 20:34
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=31435
Oops! I used to make the same mistake in Perl too (which
is I pushed to name the symbolic flag DOTALL instead of
SINGLELINE). So the correct regexp is
r'"[^"]*"[;\n]'
Assuming, of course, that Peter does want embedded newlines
to get sucked up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum)
Date: 2001-12-15 17:30
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=6380
Tim, Peter's regex starts with (?s) which is the same as
compiling with re.S or re.DOTALL which makes '.' match
newline -- the opposite of what you seem to think (?s)
means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Tim Peters (tim_one)
Date: 2001-12-15 11:08
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=31435
Peter, assuming Guido is correct that you did not intend to
match strings with embedded double quotes, here's a correct
(and much more efficient) replacement for your regexp:
r'"[^"\n]*"[;\n]'
Note that (contra Guido's suggestion <wink>), a newline has
to be part of the negated character class, because you
asked for single-line mode so presumably didn't want
your .*? to match any newlines either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum)
Date: 2001-12-15 08:03
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=6380
Do you really *want* that pattern to match input like this:
"xxx"xxx";
???
If not, replace the (.*?) with ([^"]*) -- this will
dramatically reduce the amount of backtracking generated if
there are unbalanced quotes in the input.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: P. de Jong (peterdejong)
Date: 2001-12-15 05:23
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=402001
Hi Guido!
The regular expression used was:
'(?s)"(.*?)"(;|\n)'
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Fredrik Lundh (effbot)
Date: 2001-12-14 08:32
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=38376
Three additional comments:
1) The fact that you get this under 2.0 indicates that your
regular expression doesn't run very well under 1.5.2
either; it can most likely be rewritten to be much faster,
and use much less memory.
2) But if that's okay, you can always work around this by
replacing "import re" with "import pre as re" (or "import
pre; re = pre")
3) This will be fixed in future versions.
</F>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Tim Peters (tim_one)
Date: 2001-12-14 07:57
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=31435
Assigned to /F. Echo Guido's belief that the regexp can
almost certainly be rewritten to avoid this and run much
faster at the same time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum)
Date: 2001-12-14 05:53
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=6380
Hi Peter!
This usually happens when the pattern contains * or + in a
way that causes more backtracking than one would naively
expect. Can you show us the pattern? There's usually an easy
way to rewrite the pattern so that it won't overflow -- and
it will be faster too...
BTW I would upgrade to Python 2.1.1 -- that's the most
stable release to date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=493252&group_id=5470
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4