RetroSearch Browse

Fri Aug 13 04:46:10 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047767.html

Mike Coleman wrote:

[SNIP]
>     # alternative 2:
>     re.structmatch(r'xxx|(?=abc)', 'zzxxxabczz') --> ['zz', 'bbczz']
                                                                ^
>     re.structmatch(r'xxx|(?=abc)', 'zzxxxbbczz') --> ['zz', 'bbczz']
> 
>     # alternative 3:
>     re.structmatch(r'xxx|(?=abc)', 'zzxxxabczz') --> ['zz', '', 'bbczz']
                                                                    ^
>     re.structmatch(r'xxx|(?=abc)', 'zzxxxbbczz') --> ['zz', 'bbczz']
> 

I take it the first 'b' in both of the first examples for each 
alternative were supposed to be 'a'?

And as for which version, I actually like Mike's version more than the 
one AMK and Tim like.  The reason is that the '' in the middle of the 
example in question in the OP tells you where the split would have 
occurred had split0 (I like that or 'split_empty') not been turned on. 
That way there is no real loss of data between the two, but a gain with 
the new feature being used.

-Brett

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047767.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: re.split on empty patterns