[Python-ideas] Exposing regular expression bytecode

[Jonathan Goble]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Andrew Barnert <abarnert at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Isn't the regex module intended to replace the re module "one of these days", once it's actually whipped into stdlibable shape? If so, it seems like it would be better to help Matthew finish that than to add to the re module.

As I said roughly 24 hours ago, I'd like to see this in core now
(meaning 3.6) because of its usefulness and (I presume) its
simplicity. The regex module has been "intended" to replace re for
what seems like (and probably has been) years, and could take several
more years at this pace. I really don't see what is accomplished by
excluding a simple, useful feature from this year's version of Python
core in favor of shunting it to (what is currently) a third-party PyPI
module in the hopes that it will eventually be approved to replace the
core module some years down the road. All that does is drastically
reduce the number of people who have access to the feature in the time
being.

Don't get me wrong here; I completely understand why the regex module
is being developed separately, because the changes being made are
massive. But this proposed feature is not even remotely on the scale
of those changes and can not only easily be made to core now, but can
benefit many, many users of regular expressions, especially after
third-party debuggers and optimizers come along (which is not likely
to happen *until* it's in core). Why arbitrarily limit the number of
people with access to it? And why does the fact that another regex
module has been in development for several years have to preclude any
possibility of changes to the current one, especially when the other
one doesn't seem likely to get approved any time soon?

As a final note, I ALREADY argued against shunting this to regex last
night, and quoted that response in my bump tonight. As such, you're
not leaving a good first impression on newbie me by totally ignoring
that and repeating the same suggestion without any attempt to counter
my arguments against it. If you have actual counter-arguments to
either of these responses, I'm open to listening and possibly being
convinced otherwise, but please don't just ignore what I've already
said.