[Python-Dev] Proposing PEP 386 for addition (original) (raw)

Floris Bruynooghe floris.bruynooghe at gmail.com
Thu Dec 10 10:44:35 CET 2009

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 05:41:01AM +0000, Michael Mysinger wrote:

Floris Bruynooghe <floris.bruynooghe gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 08:53:18PM -0800, Michael Mysinger wrote: > > I don't know what notation this versioning schema was trying for, especially in regards to what the +'s mean: > > N.N[.N]+[abc]N[.N]+[.postN+][.devN+] > > > The full regex (stripped from named groups) is the rather unreadable: > \d+.\d+(.\d+)([abc]?\d+(.\d+))?((.post\d+)?(.dev\d+)?)? The ()? around the combination of post and dev is not needed. I also think [abc]? should just be [abc], as one letter is required to proceed the digit in that case, and the full regular expression does help to distinguish exactly which of those two is required by the PEP.

You are right

If your regular expression with my modifications above is right, then using the substitions 'N for \d+', '{} for []', '[] for ()?' and '+ for *' leaves:

N.N[.N]+[{abc}N[.N]+][.postN][.devN] Notice that the last two +'s are gone, and overall I think this is more consistent psuedo-code.

That's quite readable and more consistent then the original pseudo-code, I like it.

Regards Floris

-- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list