Issue #22818: Splitting on a pattern that could match an empty string now

raises a warning.  Patterns that can only match empty strings are now
rejected.

Doc/library/re.rst

@@ -626,17 +626,37 @@ form.
    That way, separator components are always found at the same relative
    indices within the result list.
 
-   Note that *split* will never split a string on an empty pattern match.
-   For example:
+   .. note::
 
-      >>> re.split('x*', 'foo')
-      ['foo']
-      >>> re.split("(?m)^$", "foo\n\nbar\n")
-      ['foo\n\nbar\n']
+      :func:`split` doesn't currently split a string on an empty pattern match.
+      For example:
+
+         >>> re.split('x*', 'axbc')
+         ['a', 'bc']
+
+      Even though ``'x*'`` also matches 0 'x' before 'a', between 'b' and 'c',
+      and after 'c', currently these matches are ignored.  The correct behavior
+      (i.e. splitting on empty matches too and returning ``['', 'a', 'b', 'c',
+      '']``) will be implemented in future versions of Python, but since this
+      is a backward incompatible change, a :exc:`FutureWarning` will be raised
+      in the meanwhile.
+
+      Patterns that can only match empty strings currently never split the
+      string.  Since this doesn't match the expected behavior, a
+      :exc:`ValueError` will be raised starting from Python 3.5::
+
+         >>> re.split("^$", "foo\n\nbar\n", flags=re.M)
+         Traceback (most recent call last):
+           File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
+           ...
+         ValueError: split() requires a non-empty pattern match.
 
    .. versionchanged:: 3.1
       Added the optional flags argument.
 
+   .. versionchanged:: 3.5
+      Splitting on a pattern that could match an empty string now raises
+      a warning.  Patterns that can only match empty strings are now rejected.
 
 .. function:: findall(pattern, string, flags=0)