Tim Peters <tim.one@comcast.net> writes: > [Andrew Kuchling] > > Oh, and another possible 2.3 thing: is it time to drop the PCRE code? > > Whatever /F says. Over and over we've gotten reports that some naively > written regexps that work OK (albeit slowly) under pre "blow the stack" > under sre. The suggested workaround has been to "import pre as re". So we > break working code if the pre engine goes away before /F thinks sre is as > forgiving in these nasty cases. Stackless sre! Where's CT when you need him? <wink> Cheers, M. -- ... but I'd rather not reinvent the wheel if I don't have to. On the other hand, if the currently instantiated version of the wheel consists of a square rock covered with moss, I might as well just start fresh. -- Roy Smith, comp.lang.python
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