Artur Sadurski

Thank you for reporting that, @elgehelge, I have reproduced the problem. As a temporary workaround, you can use `date_formats` argument, as described in http://dateparser.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html#usage `parse("2003-02-01", date_formats=["%Y-%m-%d"])` The choice of MDY...

`date_formats` list can be extended, so: `parse("01-02-03", date_formats=["%Y-%m-%d", "%d-%m-%y"])` But I understand that if you have a multitude of formats, a setting that doesn't work is a serious limitation.

Hello @petricevich, a hearty thanks for your submission! Could you please take a look at [Pull Request Guidelines](https://dateparser.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing.html#pull-request-guidelines) and [Guidelines for Editing Translation Data](https://dateparser.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing.html#guidelines-for-editing-translation-data), and update your PR accordingly? Thank...

Thank you @thmo! I would encourage you to create a PR with this change (also see https://github.com/scrapinghub/dateparser/issues/1045#issuecomment-1069484011 as a confirmation), which would release the regex library version restriction.

Thanks for checking that @wrar. `regex` was chosen not only because of its improved memory handling, but also for look-behind functions which classic `re` does not support. Fallback is still...

Many thanks for thorough investigation! For now I'll make a quick fix by pinning `regex` version, but in the long run we should follow @tducret's suggestion (https://github.com/scrapinghub/dateparser/issues/1045#issuecomment-1069484011) and reform the...

Thank you for raising that, @rerowep. It seems like the PyPI publish action got stuck. It's published now :+1: