Nick Coghlan wrote: > *The inconsistency being that group() considers the whole match to be group 0, > while groups() does not. The real inconsistency seems to be that the groups are being treated as an array when they're really a tree. Maybe a different API altogether would be better, e.g. m.range --> the whole match m.subgroups[i] --> another match object with its own range and subgroups attributes -- Greg
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