Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> writes:

>>  A string regexp, by contrast, usually fits onto a single line.
>
> But regexps are tree-like structures.  That's why rx, which uses sexps
> (i.e. trees), is the easier to read representation for complicated
> regexps than a one-dimensional string.  Unless you have the ability to
> form a representation in your head.

I did not think of this at first but I think it's an excellent,
fundamental point.

>> The "English" counterpart used in rx is bulky and difficult to learn.
>> Somehow, you've got to learn that it's "word-start" and not
>> "word-beginning", that it's "not" and not "non", and so on.
>
> That's IMHO the main reason why people avoid using rx.  I wonder if that
> aspect of rx could be improved (why not just use $ as synonym for bol
> etc.)?

I guess you meant 'eol' ;)

rx supports synonyms and I think in general it's not a good idea.
That said, I really like that it uses meaningful words.  So instead of

	‘line-end’, ‘eol’

I'd leave it to only

	‘line-end’

-- 
Peter Neidhardt