Message143352
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| 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 | 2011-09-01.20:16:57 |
| SpamBayes Score | 1.8769186e-05 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1314908064.3617.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| In-reply-to | <1314907978.17.0.243959479844.issue2636@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> I think I need a show of hands. > > Should the default be old behaviour (like re) or new behaviour? (It > might be old now, new later.) > > Should there be a NEW flag (as at present), or an OLD flag, or a > VERSION parameter (0=old, 1=new, 2=?)? VERSION might be best, but then it should probably be a separate argument rather than a flag. "old now, new later" doesn't solve the issue unless we have a careful set of warnings to point out problematic regexes. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2011-09-01 20:16:57 | pitrou | set | recipients: + pitrou, loewis, georg.brandl, gregory.p.smith, jimjjewett, sjmachin, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, nneonneo, giampaolo.rodola, rsc, timehorse, mark, vbr, ezio.melotti, mrabarnett, jaylogan, akitada, moreati, steven.daprano, alex, r.david.murray, jacques, zdwiel, jhalcrow, stiv, davide.rizzo, ronnix, eric.snow, akoumjian |
| 2011-09-01 20:16:57 | pitrou | link | issue2636 messages |
| 2011-09-01 20:16:57 | pitrou | create | |