Message143343
| Author | ezio.melotti |
|---|---|
| Recipients | akitada, akoumjian, alex, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, davide.rizzo, eric.snow, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, giampaolo.rodola, gregory.p.smith, jacques, jaylogan, jhalcrow, jimjjewett, loewis, mark, moreati, mrabarnett, nneonneo, pitrou, r.david.murray, ronnix, rsc, sjmachin, steven.daprano, stiv, timehorse, vbr, zdwiel |
| Date | 2011-09-01.18:40:00 |
| SpamBayes Score | 1.6989144e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1314902400.86.0.107660407722.issue2636@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Changing the name of the flag is fine with me.
Having a warning for unescaped brackets that trigger set operations might also be a solution (once escaped they will still work on the old re). Maybe the same could also be done for scoped flags.
FWIW I tried to come up with a simpler regex that makes some sense and triggers unwanted set operations and I didn't come up with anything except:
>>> regex.findall('[[(]foo[)]]', '[[foo] (foo)]')
['f', 'o', 'o', '(', 'f', 'o', 'o', ')']
>>> re.findall('[[(]foo[)]]', '[[foo] (foo)]')
['(foo)]']
(but this doesn't make too much sense). Complex regex will still break though, so the issue needs to be addressed somehow. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2011-09-01 18:40:01 | ezio.melotti | set | recipients: + ezio.melotti, loewis, georg.brandl, gregory.p.smith, jimjjewett, sjmachin, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, pitrou, nneonneo, giampaolo.rodola, rsc, timehorse, mark, vbr, mrabarnett, jaylogan, akitada, moreati, steven.daprano, alex, r.david.murray, jacques, zdwiel, jhalcrow, stiv, davide.rizzo, ronnix, eric.snow, akoumjian |
| 2011-09-01 18:40:00 | ezio.melotti | set | messageid: <1314902400.86.0.107660407722.issue2636@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011-09-01 18:40:00 | ezio.melotti | link | issue2636 messages |
| 2011-09-01 18:40:00 | ezio.melotti | create | |