From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Herbert Euler" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: A prototype of intelligent replace for Emacs Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 23:01:00 +0800 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1178463678 26882 80.91.229.12 (6 May 2007 15:01:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 15:01:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun May 06 17:01:16 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HkiEd-0002Ss-Jp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 May 2007 17:01:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HkiLV-0006ag-6I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 06 May 2007 11:08:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HkiLN-0006Yh-IB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 May 2007 11:08:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HkiLM-0006Xu-9l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 May 2007 11:08:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HkiLL-0006XP-V1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 May 2007 11:08:11 -0400 Original-Received: from bay0-omc2-s14.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.150]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HkiES-00032v-Iy; Sun, 06 May 2007 11:01:04 -0400 Original-Received: from hotmail.com ([65.55.154.83]) by bay0-omc2-s14.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Sun, 6 May 2007 08:01:03 -0700 Original-Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 6 May 2007 08:01:02 -0700 Original-Received: from 65.55.154.123 by by143fd.bay143.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 06 May 2007 15:01:00 GMT X-Originating-IP: [221.223.210.138] X-Originating-Email: [herberteuler@hotmail.com] X-Sender: herberteuler@hotmail.com In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 May 2007 15:01:02.0947 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D59CB30:01C78FEF] X-detected-kernel: Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP1+ X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:70593 Archived-At: > If there are many different rules, many features can be computed for a > match. Because features computed from a same rule can be compared, > matches can be classified, or grouped together, with their features. > This is based on similarity among the matches. Now the concept of > "block" and "class" can be defined. A _block_ is a match plus its > features. A _class_ is a set of blocks, all of which have the same > features. Continuing from the previous example, since the first and > the third block have the same feature "status", they are in one class. > The second block is a class itself. > >Now I understand. Can we find a simple way to present this? > >The term "block" is not appropriate. It should be called a "match". >There is no reason why a "match" can't include these features. It is Ok for me that a "match" includes features as well, but "match" is not a good term for this purpose, since "match" is already used to indicate matches without features in Emacs. Calling a match with features "match" too would perhaps disorder names in the source code: we already have `save-match-data', `set-match-data', `match-beginning' etc in it, and people may be confused by the two different meanings of the same term "match". But they are indeed matches. How about call them "imatch", the "i(replace) match", and document it well? >"Class" would be come clear if introduced as "class of like matches". This is true. Then should I use the word "class" in the source code, and use the term "class of like matches" in the document? `class-of-like-matches' is too long for a name in program, after all. Thanks. Regards, Guanpeng Xu _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/