RetroSearch Browse

Thu Sep 9 04:20:29 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-September/048732.html

> 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?)

I'm with /F here. There are already so many ways to do it, adding more
isn't going to make things easier, and I'd rather see the API stable.
Also, it's awfully close to 2.4b1.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
Ask me about gmail.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-September/048732.html below:

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