<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 00:40, Eli Barzilay <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eli@barzilay.org">eli@barzilay.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <div class="im">[...]<br> <br> </div>At a high level, pything *is* doing the same -- it uses strings to<br> specify regexps, so both have the *same* syntax. So this:<br> <div class="im"><br> > That is writing strings is not exactly the same as writing "strings<br> > for a regexp".<br> <br> </div>is wrong -- it's the same syntax for both. (At least AFAICT.)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Yes, yes... I was simply forgetting about the raw-strings... when writing regexps I tend to type r"\d{2}\b".</div> <div>Raw-strings have no backlash escape sequences, so r"\d\b" => '\\d\\b'</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <div class="im">[...]<br> <br> </div>If you get the impression that I dislike what python does with<br> quoting, then that would be a correct one... </blockquote><div><br></div><div>You made that enough clear.</div><div><br></div><div>I wouldn't fight in a fire combat for none of the languages, but I now I get the point of Racket's design and as many other lisp-things, that does sound like a Good Idea.</div> <div><br></div><div>Consistent, composable, clear, easy to explain.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>[]'s</div><div><br></div><div>Rodolfo Carvalho</div></div>