Mike Coleman wrote: > Paul Moore <pf_moore at yahoo.co.uk> writes: >>The only other comment I have is that the semantics seem pretty >>complex - I think that in practice, they do more or less what you want >>them to, but the description is pretty obscure. I'd say that is probably a warning flag, but I don't know, at the same time it looks like it could be kind of useful. >>And although I can see that the error return has some value, I suspect that >>it might actually complicate real use. > > > Someone else suggested throwing an exception instead, which I'm now leaning in > favor of, too. Exceptions are the way to go. You should get what you ask for, or a heads up. Errors should never pass silently. > > >>A suggestion - would it be possible to implement re.structmatch as a >>pure Python prototype, to thrash out some of the usability questions? >>If the function appears valuable in such a form, arguing for >>incorporation into the re module would be a lot easier. > > > I suspect that in this case a pure Python implementation might actually be a > lot harder than implementing it as a C patch. This is because so much of the > work is already done in the current re module; the C patch would probably not > be that big. In order to do it in Python I'd end up reimplementing re.match > in Python, which I wouldn't look forward to. I hacked up a Python prototype, mostly as a challenge. It's brittle and it's ugly, but it kind of works. Though, if /F says it would require a major rewrite of the C-engine, that's probably true... <wink> Erik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: structmatch.py Type: text/x-python Size: 5760 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040810/a5e602ab/structmatch.py
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