Improvements in regular expression doc #114357
Conversation
The check about the f argument type was removed in this commit: python@2c94aa5 Thanks for Pedro Arthur Duarte (pedroarthur.jedi at gmail.com) by the help with this bug.
…#106335) Remove private _PyThreadState and _PyInterpreterState C API functions: move them to the internal C API (pycore_pystate.h and pycore_interp.h). Don't export most of these functions anymore, but still export functions used by tests. Remove _PyThreadState_Prealloc() and _PyThreadState_Init() from the C API, but keep it in the stable API.
bedevere-app
bot
added
awaiting review
docs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PR does 3 things.
- Add headers. I have thought to propose the same. Please add 1 more at 320, something like
.. _re_extension_notation
Extension notation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CHANGE
-
Add double backticks, either new or extending single backticks. The existing text always put backticks on REs and sometimes on text matched. PR makes that (nearly, 2 expections noted) always on matches. Defensible since this seems the majority of existing cases. CHANGE
-
Add 'only' in several places. I am not sure these are needed, but I see existing similar uses.
@serhiy-storchaka I want to finish this RE doc change. Any additional comments from you?
Doc/library/re.rst
Outdated
| only 'foo'. More interestingly, searching for ``foo.$`` in ``'foo1\nfoo2\n'`` | ||
| matches 'foo2' normally, but 'foo1' in :const:`MULTILINE` mode; searching for | ||
| matches 'foo2' normally, but ``'foo1'`` in :const:`MULTILINE` mode; searching |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To be consistent with other additions, 'foo' above and 'foo2' here should be backticked. But see review summary.
|
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated. Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase |
|
I am not sure that there is a need in these changes.
|
|
Hi, @terryjreedy. Thank you for your review and comments. The items 1 and 2 are done. Concern 3: the idea is to make the Without >>> import re
>>> re.findall(r'\d+', '567abc123٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩')
['567', '123٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩']However, with >>> import re
>>> re.findall(r'\d+', '567abc123٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩', re.ASCII)
['567', '123'] |
This can start adding more in-line examples, like in progress with strings (#119445). |
|
I have made the requested changes; please review again |
|
Thanks for making the requested changes! @terryjreedy: please review the changes made to this pull request. |
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--114357.org.readthedocs.build/