tim wrote:
> That would make SRE's job clear here, yes? And in a way that allows =
the
> now-failing test to pass again?
sure. quoting from python-checkins:
RCS file: /cvsroot/python/python/dist/src/Lib/test/output/test_sre,v
...
test_sre
- =3D=3D=3D Failed incorrectly ('\\x00ffffffffffffff', '\377', 0, =
'found', '\377')
=3D=3D=3D Failed incorrectly ('^(.+)?B', 'AB', 0, 'g1', 'A')
...
still messes up on nested repetitions, but that's entirely
different problem...
</F>
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