From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: :alnum: broken? Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 19:40:30 +0100 Message-ID: <8DDB1C0D-E3B2-44B2-A585-722AE094D9A1@acm.org> References: <86wo8flqct.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <86sgj3ljf0.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <5fecc0e1-1ee2-5a89-9297-b0b9aa4a8e9c@cs.ucla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="90789"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Stephen Leake , emacs-devel To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 23 20:40:51 2020 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 1j5x7T-000NY4-3l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 20:40:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56202 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j5x7S-0001hO-5d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 14:40:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48062) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j5x6v-00019y-BF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 14:40:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j5x6u-0000h3-0e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 14:40:17 -0500 Original-Received: from mail1463c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.14.63]:60252 helo=mail268c50.megamailservers.eu) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j5x6s-0000YV-R6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 14:40:15 -0500 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1582483235; bh=lEcK1Wi9DpAnx2mtYOwWoC3qPWkYM2XooPS0+yhm82w=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=YxdF+ry3ZspKDen1vh8lPA7+kG70H5aChgcK2U9rIjq6borQ/lMgY4ko4Z0AqQrV/ rkrYQ5MARtsuoUyQZmekte19XZ33z5TaQ+jRSOnFR81OLA3ykFDByJ0/uyHryFXg2v 0SMrEjlYqdi7mCwfzdDgg+bZ1hK1YD83rVpaElKw= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Original-Received: from stanniol.lan (c-6f4fe655.032-75-73746f71.bbcust.telenor.se [85.230.79.111]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail268c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 01NIeVBJ005018; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 18:40:33 +0000 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0B0205.5E52C723.0011, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=2.3 cv=J53UEzvS c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=fHaj9vQUQVKQ4sUldAaXuQ==:117 a=fHaj9vQUQVKQ4sUldAaXuQ==:17 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=M51BFTxLslgA:10 a=Lx6-hBMNXlrEylbAg8kA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x (no timestamps) [generic] X-Received-From: 91.136.14.63 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:245048 Archived-At: 23 feb. 2020 kl. 19.13 skrev Paul Eggert : > I understand the objection, but the check is not unsound. The syntax = of regexps was not carved in stone by God. It is something that we = decide, and we can change our minds if the change would be an overall = win, as it would be if Emacs behaved like Grep. We seem to be in full agreement. (I meant incomplete rather than = unsound, of course, and you were graceful enough to understand that.) > The byte-compiler could warn about some of these blunders and if = someone wants to change the byte-compiler to do that, it would be an = improvement. However, this would necessarily either cry wolf or let = blunders through, because the byte-compiler cannot reliably determine = whether a string will be used as a regular expression. Quite, it would be rather elaborate code for finding a small subset of = what relint does. In contrast, doing it in the regexp compiler is both = simple and accurate, although only mistakes encountered dynamically are = found.