From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [ELPA] New package: xr Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:06:49 -0500 Message-ID: References: <875zt5feys.fsf@web.de> <23E9F007-5B84-45C6-9933-5A1220058CAA@acm.org> <87o96xdup3.fsf@web.de> <99EEC0DC-3E76-4CC7-80D7-B6ADF480C818@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="41894"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 01 00:07:39 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gzUmB-000Ahz-2I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:07:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47917 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gzUmA-0007wj-2v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:07:38 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59659) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gzUlY-0007wR-7t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:07:00 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gzUlX-0005gV-HT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:07:00 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=46116 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gzUlX-0005fq-9Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 18:06:59 -0500 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gzUlS-0009q3-AM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:06:54 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:MjnpQUb3MFUKOhlx/8fncRgziD4= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:233715 Archived-At: > one-or-more 1+ + > zero-or-more 0+ * > zero-or-one optional opt ? I'm definitely in favor of using the standard * + and ? > any char in I think I prefer `char` or `in`. > line-start bol > line-end eol > string-start buffer-start bos bot > string-end buffer-end eos eot > word-start bow > word-end eow I like the boX/eoX nomenclature. The main benefit of RX is to make the structure more visible, and the main downside is to make regexp more verbose, so I think short identifiers are preferable. > sequence seq and : I'm strongly opposed to `and` because that should mean the conjunction/intersection of two regexps (i.e. a string matches it only if it matches both sub-regexps) rather than the sequential concatenation. [ lex.el supports such intersections. ] Stefan