Guido van Rossum wrote: > From this I understand that when using e.g. findall() it forces > successive matches to be adjacent. Seems to me this would be better addressed using an option to findall() rather than being part of the regex. That would avoid the issue of where to keep the state. -- 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