RetroSearch Browse

Wed Sep 8 20:16:26 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-September/048709.html

> > If you see a downside, feel free to reject his patch.  IMO, it is
only a
> > small win.
> 
> If it's up to me, it's a clear "not worth it".  The function API is
only
> there for
> trivial cases; if you need the full RE power, use pattern objects (you
> have
> to use them anyway if you're serious about RE:s).
> 
> but I'm an API minimalist; someone else will have to make the final
> decision
> on this one (Guido, what's your take on API size issues?)

It is up to you.  You're still the god of re (among other things).

FWIW, I gave extra weight to the OP's usability enhancement request
because it was born out of experience teaching Python to newbies.  The
patch itself is a little rough and needs refinement.

Raymond

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-September/048709.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: Re: Missing arguments in RE functions