From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Ugly regexps Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 12:44:20 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83pn0g6ajq.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9a8jj2x.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="16305"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 03 18:46:08 2021 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 1lHVZX-000462-4W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 18:46:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38306 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lHVZW-0001b7-4C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 12:46:06 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44806) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lHVXv-00010b-UT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 12:44:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:59908) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lHVXt-0005T8-F8; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 12:44:26 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2D9DE100250; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:44:23 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A9ACC10022F; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:44:21 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1614793461; bh=MSFq5KBSIN35viqzuPvpFZ+qgJngZ779/I9iWquLWVU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=OrNsugSN59fmJU/INDsqKVilyj3uU78CtYRE7vScWj4iYOI+ISjY/BWv5sKFs1eXn K+3YnzkCINg8mhq1mRjfDySxJv0Fh4UYmy5371kqx7BC21jRE4K0f2V5NKdk4iHtWq fuDhCkTyFrkwOCUhutZBbusNui6evTRRgvRvZV3faFK0T5r7N2oW/i6Fhn0Nl65jfq VJnOUYg1I+M26xiwZJXxHE9702HaY+Jv4wcMbIuXzuKP9cB60WeUNIGB1ox/TkRNHf 6oNsSxPSUt/0bbgylnzIiJpdcjcBAkbBQSij4kUN5MQHmIqIY7gNvwYSHCr/bcV+oJ q4EkU1ng9eMYw== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.41.47]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 819CA120337; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:44:21 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83v9a8jj2x.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 03 Mar 2021 18:30:30 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:265897 Archived-At: >> Not sure what you mean by "those cases". I'm thinking this `ere` would >> be useful for the cases where the author finds `rx` unpalatable for >> some reason. > Why would someone find rx unpalatable? Maybe just because of habit, but I think the main downside of `rx` is that it's very verbose, which ends up hiding the "text". For example in (rx "(def" (or "macro" "un" "subst"))) I find the `or` to get a bit in the way of my visual cortex recognizing the "defmacro" pattern above. > If this is about personal preferences and tastes, then I think having > 3 different flavors of regexps in our sources due to personal > preferences is not necessarily a good idea. Yes, it's the downside. Stefan