bug#26338: 26.0.50; Collect all matches for REGEXP in current buffer

[Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl>]

On 2017-04-04, at 03:37, Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com> wrote:

> Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> writes:
>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> But there is already the occur-collect feature implemented in occur-1
>>>> and occur-read-primary-args.  Why would we need a separate command?
>>> Indeed i don't think we need a new command for this.  I am thinking more
>>> in an standard function.
>>> Following:
>>> (occur "defun\\s +\\(\\S +\\)" "\\1")
>>>
>>> doesn't return the collected things.  It writes the matches in *Occur*
>>> buffer.  Then, if you want a list with the matches you must loop
>>> again inside *Occur* which is sub-optimal.
>>> For me, it has sense to have a `occur-collect' which just returns the
>>> list of matches.
>>> Then, we might use such function in the implementation of occur-1
>>> which could bring a cleaner implementation.
>>> We might get also the LIMIT argument for occur which might come
>>> in handy for multi-occur with lot of input buffers (just an idea).
>>
>> occur-collect is intended for interactive use.  As for programmatic use,
>> Dmitry is right: a universal idiom is (while (re-search-forward ...)).
>> This is why e.g. the docstring of ‘replace-regexp’ recommends to use
>> an explicit loop like (while (re-search-forward ...) (replace-match ...))
> OK thanks.  Let me ask you my last proposal before come back to my dark
> cave and start painting animals in the walls.
>
> Any interest in something like this?:
>
> (defmacro with-collect-matches (regexp &optional group &rest body)
>   "Collect matches for REGEXP and eval BODY for each match.
> BODY is evaluated with `it' bound to the match.
> Optional GROUP if non-nil, then is the regexp group to save.  Otherwise,
> save the whole match."

Sorry if this was said already, but why a macro and not a map-like
function?

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski