Message119887
| Author | jacques |
|---|---|
| Recipients | akitada, amaury.forgeotdarc, collinwinter, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, giampaolo.rodola, gregory.p.smith, jacques, jaylogan, jhalcrow, jimjjewett, loewis, mark, moreati, mrabarnett, nneonneo, pitrou, r.david.murray, rsc, sjmachin, timehorse, vbr |
| Date | 2010-10-29.11:11:32 |
| SpamBayes Score | 3.232763e-08 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1288350694.14.0.76473383047.issue2636@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Do we expect this to work on 64 bit Linux and python 2.6.5? I've compiled and run some of my code through this, and there seems to be issues with non-greedy quantifier matching (at least relative to the old re module):
$ cat test.py
import re, regex
text = "(MY TEST)"
regexp = '\((?P<test>.{0,5}?TEST)\)'
print re.findall(regexp, text)
print regex.findall(regexp, text)
$ python test.py
['MY TEST']
[]
python 2.7 produces the same results for me.
However, making the quantifier greedy (removing the '?') gives the same result for both re and regex modules. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2010-10-29 11:11:34 | jacques | set | recipients: + jacques, loewis, georg.brandl, collinwinter, gregory.p.smith, jimjjewett, sjmachin, amaury.forgeotdarc, pitrou, nneonneo, giampaolo.rodola, rsc, timehorse, mark, vbr, ezio.melotti, mrabarnett, jaylogan, akitada, moreati, r.david.murray, jhalcrow |
| 2010-10-29 11:11:34 | jacques | set | messageid: <1288350694.14.0.76473383047.issue2636@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010-10-29 11:11:32 | jacques | link | issue2636 messages |
| 2010-10-29 11:11:32 | jacques | create | |