From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Looking at function Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 10:50:28 +0300 Organization: LINKOV.NET Message-ID: <864jzm4u9f.fsf@mail.linkov.net> References: <86edz8k6q1.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <86y1wzv4uv.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <3c642f4d-471b-d6d2-8519-b4707e1193ba@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29792"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 12 10:26:14 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oBBDi-0007du-ME for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 10:26:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51716 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oBBDh-0003Us-H5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 04:26:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49456) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oBBAr-0000z6-Hm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 04:23:17 -0400 Original-Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:dc4:8::227]:42023) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oBBAp-0004hQ-PB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 04:23:17 -0400 Original-Received: (Authenticated sender: juri@linkov.net) by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45BB520007; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 08:23:09 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <3c642f4d-471b-d6d2-8519-b4707e1193ba@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Tue, 12 Jul 2022 03:19:42 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2001:4b98:dc4:8::227; envelope-from=juri@linkov.net; helo=relay7-d.mail.gandi.net X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:292067 Archived-At: >>> Do we have a clear understanding of the idea behind this looking-at call? >>> >>> The comment says: >>> >>> ;; Otherwise, if matching a regular expression, do the next >>> ;; match now, since the replacement for this match may >>> ;; affect whether the next match is adjacent to this one. >>> ;; If that match is empty, don't use it. >>> >>> What happens if there are multiple adjacent matches in a row, not just 2? >>> I suppose the replacement could be performed for the first one, then the >>> next one is "popped" becoming the current and looking-at is called again >>> near its end? Actually, this is how it worked until now. >>> If so, perhaps a good alternative is to stop caring about whether those >>> matches are adjacent and always store the latest two matches, whether they >>> are next to each other or not. And this is how it's implemented by the patches in bug#14013 and bug#53758. >> The sole purpose of this "do the next match now" hack >> is to handle a special use case that is tested >> in test/lisp/replace-tests.el: >> ;; Test case from commit 5632eb272c7 >> ("a a a " "C-M-% \\ba SPC RET c RET !" "ccc") ; not "ca c" >> ;; Test case from commit 5632eb272c7 >> ("a a a " "\\ba " "c" nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil "ccc") ; not "ca c" > > All right. So it seems the idea of keeping references to the two latest can > work. > > No idea how big the changes will have to be, though. Shouldn't keeping only one reference be sufficient?