Why re.match()?

[Terry Reedy]

kj wrote:

> "There is real value in having a small language."
> 
> 			Guido van Rossum, 2007.07.03
> 			http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-July/008663.html
> 
> So there.

small != minimal

> 
> BTW, that's just one example.  I've seen similar sentiments expressed
> by Guido over and over and over: any new proposed enhancement to
> Python must be good enough in his mind to justify cluttering the
> language.  That attitude counts as minimalism in my book.
> 
> The best explanation I have found so far for re.match is that it
> is an unfortunate bit of legacy, something that would not be there
> if the design of Python did not have to be mindful of keeping old
> code chugging along...

It is possible that someone proposed removing re.match for 3.0, but I do 
not remember any such discussion. Some things were dropped when that 
contraint was (teporarily) dropped.

tjr