Author tim.peters
Recipients Arfrever, eli.bendersky, ezio.melotti, larry, mrabarnett, pitrou, python-dev, serhiy.storchaka, tim.peters
Date 2013-08-04.19:34:48
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1375644889.13.0.0630438600372.issue18647@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I'm afraid it's just too tricky for the code to deduce that a negative lookahead assertion can imply that a later match can't be empty.  But I don't know how smart the re compilation code already is ;-)

It occurs to me now that the doctest regexp could worm around this very easily, via replacing:

.*$\n?

with:

.+$\n?

The success of the negative lookahead assertion here doesn't _just_ imply that


.*$\n?

will match a non-empty string, it also implies that

.+$

will succeed (and so also that .+$\n? will succeed).
History
Date User Action Args
2013-08-04 19:34:49tim.peterssetrecipients: + tim.peters, pitrou, larry, ezio.melotti, mrabarnett, Arfrever, eli.bendersky, python-dev, serhiy.storchaka
2013-08-04 19:34:49tim.peterssetmessageid: <1375644889.13.0.0630438600372.issue18647@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-08-04 19:34:49tim.peterslinkissue18647 messages
2013-08-04 19:34:48tim.peterscreate