My 2 cents is that regular expressions are pretty un-pythonic because of their horrible readability. I would much rather see Python adopt something like Verbal Expressions ( https://github.com/VerbalExpressions/PythonVerbalExpressions ) into the standard library than add special syntax support for normal REs.

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28 March 2017 at 08:54, Simon D. <simon@acoeuro.com> wrote:
> I believe that the u"" notation in Python 2.7 is defined by while
> importing the unicode_litterals module.

That's not true. The u"..." syntax is part of the language. from
future import unicode_literals is something completely different.

> Each regexp lib could provide its instanciation of regexp litteral
> notation.

The Python language has no way of doing that - user (or library)
defined literals are not possible.

> And if only the default one does, it would still be won for the
> beginers, and the majority of persons using the stdlib.

How? You've yet to prove that having a regex literal form is an
improvement over re.compile(r'put your regex here'). You've asserted
it, but that's a matter of opinion. We'd need evidence of real-life
code that was clearly improved by the existence of your proposed
construct.

Paul

_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/