Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(58121)

#22818: Deprecate splitting on possible zero-width re patterns

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
4 years, 7 months ago by storchaka+cpython
Modified:
4 years, 4 months ago
Reviewers:
ezio.melotti, berker.peksag
CC:
AntoinePitrou, ezio.melotti, mrabarnett, devnull_psf.upfronthosting.co.za, storchaka
Visibility:
Public.

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 #

Total comments: 19

Patch Set 3 #

Total comments: 5

Patch Set 4 #

Total comments: 6
Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats Patch
Doc/library/re.rst View 1 2 3 1 chunk +26 lines, -6 lines 6 comments Download
Doc/whatsnew/3.5.rst View 1 2 3 1 chunk +7 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
Lib/sre_compile.py View 1 2 3 2 chunks +5 lines, -5 lines 0 comments Download
Lib/test/test_re.py View 1 2 3 2 chunks +30 lines, -9 lines 0 comments Download
Modules/_sre.c View 1 2 3 1 chunk +13 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 5
ezio.melotti
http://bugs.python.org/review/22818/diff/13665/Doc/library/re.rst File Doc/library/re.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/22818/diff/13665/Doc/library/re.rst#newcode631 Doc/library/re.rst:631: *split* will never split a string on an empty ...
4 years, 4 months ago #1
storchaka_gmail.com
https://bugs.python.org/review/22818/diff/13665/Doc/library/re.rst File Doc/library/re.rst (right): https://bugs.python.org/review/22818/diff/13665/Doc/library/re.rst#newcode631 Doc/library/re.rst:631: *split* will never split a string on an empty ...
4 years, 4 months ago #2
ezio.melotti
http://bugs.python.org/review/22818/diff/13735/Doc/library/re.rst File Doc/library/re.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/22818/diff/13735/Doc/library/re.rst#newcode631 Doc/library/re.rst:631: :func:`split` will never split a string on an empty ...
4 years, 4 months ago #3
berkerpeksag
http://bugs.python.org/review/22818/diff/13736/Doc/library/re.rst File Doc/library/re.rst (right): http://bugs.python.org/review/22818/diff/13736/Doc/library/re.rst#newcode641 Doc/library/re.rst:641: is a backward incompatible change, a warning will be ...
4 years, 4 months ago #4
storchaka_gmail.com
4 years, 4 months ago #5
http://bugs.python.org/review/22818/diff/13736/Doc/library/re.rst
File Doc/library/re.rst (right):

http://bugs.python.org/review/22818/diff/13736/Doc/library/re.rst#newcode641
Doc/library/re.rst:641: is a backward incompatible change, a warning will be
raised in the
On 2015/01/26 20:03:21, berkerpeksag wrote:
> If I understand the conversation on #python-dev correctly, adding 
> :exc:`UserWarning` instead of "warning" would be better.

I hesitate. Originally I was going to emit DeprecationWarning in 3.5,
UserWarning in 3.6 and raise an exception in 3.7.

http://bugs.python.org/review/22818/diff/13736/Doc/library/re.rst#newcode645
Doc/library/re.rst:645: string.  Since this doesn't match the expected behavior,
an error
On 2015/01/26 20:03:21, berkerpeksag wrote:
> "an error" -> "a :exc:`ValueError`"

Done.

http://bugs.python.org/review/22818/diff/13736/Doc/library/re.rst#newcode646
Doc/library/re.rst:646: will be raised starting from Python 3.5.
On 2015/01/26 20:03:21, berkerpeksag wrote:
> Python 3.5. -> Python 3.5::

Done.
Sign in to reply to this message.

RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld 894c83f36cb7+