On 10/23/2015 14:40, Ned Batchelder wrote:
In principle, there is no reason why *both* of these groups of users can't use one tool and be happy. I propose to establish a convention in PEP 8, explaining that, while both literals are semantically equivalent,
- r'..' strings *should* be used for regexps,
- R'..' strings *should* be used for unstyled raw strings,
and tools *should* treat them as such.
All of this is merely about codifying the current status quo. But you are not codifying the status quo. The distinction you are
On 10/22/15 6:56 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote: proposing is one that you have invented. I have never used R"" strings.
I think the best solution to the problem is to improve the highlighters, and luckily you have written one! To me, it is clear which of these strings is the regex:
r"\d+" r"\dir"
If the highlighters tried some heuristics, they could do a better job "being helpful" by making better guesses about the meaning of programs. I don't mind when highlighters make wrong guesses, as long as they don't ruin the entire rest of the file. But better guesses will be better. :)
--Ned.
it should be noted that most regexes are also valid paths on NTFS. is r'\dir[a-zA-Z0-9]\\' a path or a regex?