Making regex suck less

A.M. Kuchling amk at
Sun Sep 1 23:07:24 CEST 2002

In article <3d725881.345921 at>, Gerson Kurz wrote:
> in the match or find function. So basically, couldn't one come up with
> a *human readable* syntax for re, and compile that instead? Python

Maybe Ka-Ping Yee's rxb?

The problem with a new syntax is that no one else would be using it, so
you'd still need to learn the existing syntax for use with grep, vi, Perl,
&c.  (It wouldn't surprise me if Perl 6's revised regexes run into this very
difficulty and don't gain much adoption.)


More information about the Python-list mailing list