On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 05:41:01AM +0000, Michael Mysinger wrote:
> Floris Bruynooghe <floris.bruynooghe <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 08:53:18PM -0800, Michael Mysinger wrote:
> > > I don't know what notation this versioning schema was trying for, especially
> in regards to what the +'s mean:
> > > N.N[.N]+[abc]N[.N]+[.postN+][.devN+]
> > >
> > The full regex (stripped from named groups) is the rather unreadable:
> > \d+\.\d+(\.\d+)*([abc]?\d+(\.\d+)*)?((\.post\d+)?(\.dev\d+)?)?
>
> The ()? around the combination of post and dev is not needed. I also think
> [abc]? should just be [abc], as one letter is required to proceed the digit in
> that case, and the full regular expression does help to distinguish exactly
> which of those two is required by the PEP.
You are right
> If your regular expression with my modifications above is right,
> then using the substitions 'N for \d+', '{} for []', '[] for ()?'
> and '+ for *' leaves:
>
> N.N[.N]+[{abc}N[.N]+][.postN][.devN]
>
> Notice that the last two +'s are gone, and overall I think this is more
> consistent psuedo-code.
That's quite readable and more consistent then the original
pseudo-code, I like it.
Regards
Floris
--
Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom
www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org
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