Mattias Engdegård <mattiase@acm.org> writes:

> -;; (rx (and line-start (eval something-else))), statically or
> -;; (rx-to-string '(and line-start ,something-else)), dynamically.
> +;; (rx (seq line-start (regexp something-else)))
>
> You can actually drop the `seq' form entirely, since it's implicit in `rx'.
> It was only needed for `rx-to-string' which is now gone.

Yeah, that applies to most of the examples actually.  Updated (and I
found a couple of mistakes in them).

> +`(literal STRING)'
> +     matches STRING literally, where STRING is any lisp
> +     expression that evaluates to a string.
>
> It's better to name the metavariable EXPR, STRING-EXPR or LISP-EXPR to
> make it clear that it's an arbitrary lisp expression, especially since
> STRING is used for a constant string just above.

Sure.

> The same goes for `regexp', since it can now be a lisp expression;
> this should be mentioned in the describing paragraph, using a similar
> phrasing. The `literal' item should probably be moved next to
> `regexp', since they are closely related.

Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure whether `literal' should be considered more
related to `regexp' or STRING.  I guess since I've added a mention of
`literal' and `regexp' in the paragraphs above it makes sense to put
them at the end together.

> The paragraph on `eval' uses FORM, which is too generic

No, it's not generic, see (info "(elisp) Intro Eval"):

       A Lisp object that is intended for evaluation is called a "form" or
    "expression"(1).