Regexp syntax change in 1.6?

[Gareth McCaughan]

Tim Peters wrote:

[I said:]
> > Well, (x?)? should be equivalent to (x)? or (x?), so
> > perhaps it's reasonable to be issued a warning. An
> > outright error seems rather harsh.
> 
> This is a bid for sympathy for poor Fredrik:  while (x)? and (x?) match the
> same strings, they're actually *not* the same regexp, thanks to the way
> group side-effects are defined.

Sure. (I actually thought I'd demonstrated that I knew this,
but never mind. I should be less subtle next time <0.6 wink>).

> With all this crap to worry about, a lapse on (x?)? is forgivable <wink>.

I entirely agree. I did say "rather harsh" rather than,
say, "catastrophically and unforgivably broken", after all.

if-it-ain't-fixed-don't-break-it-ly y'rs,

-- 
Gareth McCaughan  Gareth.McCaughan at pobox.com
sig under construction
(apologies to Tim for my feeble mimicry of his style <0 wink>)