On Jan 28, 2012, at 11:13 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >Really, regex is the *reason* this PEP exists: we *know* we need to >either replace or seriously enhance "re" (since its Unicode handling >isn't up to scratch), but we're only *pretty sure* adding "regex" to >the stdlib is the right answer. Adding "__preview__.regex" instead >gives us a chance to back out if we uncover serious problems (e.g. >with the cross-platform support). I'd also feel much better about this PEP if we had specific ways to measure success. If, for example, regex were added to Python 3.3, but removed from 3.4 because we didn't get enough feedback about it, then I'd consider the approach put forward in this PEP to be a failure. Experiments that fail are *okay* of course, if they are viewed as experiments, there are clear metrics to measure their success, and we have the guts to end the experiment if it doesn't work out. Of course, if it's a resounding success, then that's fantastic too. -Barry
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