From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: modern regexes in emacs Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 22:00:53 +0200 Message-ID: <83ftson7nu.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20180616123704.7123f6d7@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <87po0qs6re.fsf@gmail.com> <83r2c9m8yj.fsf@gnu.org> <17581DA9-7DCA-432E-A2E8-E5184DFA8B4B@acm.org> <20190215114728.0785e891@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <20190215175405.GA5438@ACM> <83lg2gnbky.fsf@gnu.org> <20190215191447.GB5438@ACM> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="137003"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: mattiase@acm.org, lokedhs@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, philippe.vaucher@gmail.com, jaygkamat@gmail.com, perry@piermont.com To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 15 21:01:08 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 1gujfY-000ZV8-Dk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 21:01:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45510 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gujfX-0001cW-AQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:01:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39906) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gujfQ-0001cJ-T2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:01:01 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:52401) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gujfO-0003vG-F6; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:00:58 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2782 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1gujfN-00055h-Lk; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:00:58 -0500 In-reply-to: <20190215191447.GB5438@ACM> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 19:14:47 +0000) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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:233397 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 19:14:47 +0000 > Cc: perry@piermont.com, mattiase@acm.org, lokedhs@gmail.com, > emacs-devel@gnu.org, philippe.vaucher@gmail.com, jaygkamat@gmail.com > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > > I suggest we retain our current regexp notation, together with compatible > > > tools, as the sole way of writing regexps in Emacs. This notation is not > > > all that bad, and it is thoroughly documented and well tested. It's the > > > approach which will cause the least confusion. It works. > > > I proposed to have a separate set of functions that will accept PCRE > > syntax. That would allow everyone to have what they want: you to use > > the "classic" regexps, and those who want PCRE to have that. Where's > > the problem with that? > > This will end up with a mixture of the two incompatible styles of regexp > in the Emacs sources. I can see there being such a mixture even within > single source files. This will be confusing to everybody, particularly > to beginners. How is that different from having rx.el? And how is that different from having pcase.el, which invents a whole new sub-language on tyop of Lisp? Etc. etc. -- that ship has already sailed. IMO, we'd be silly (let alone look and sound silly) to try to stop this. The net result will be an unbunlded package which everyone will use, while we bury our heads in the sand.