From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "Raw" string literals for elisp Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 19:36:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4209edd83cfee7c84b2d75ebfcd38784fa21b23c.camel@crossproduct.net> <8735qeg9ed.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7403"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Mattias =?iso-8859-1?Q?Engdeg=E5rd?= , Anna Glasgall , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 08 21:37:13 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 1mO3Nf-0001fe-FL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 21:37:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48874 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mO3Ne-0004xp-CU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 15:37:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57702) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mO3N6-0004FV-PH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 15:36:36 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:60032 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mO3N4-0004Zb-S5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 15:36:36 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 65663 invoked by uid 3782); 8 Sep 2021 19:36:32 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15ce6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.92.230]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 21:36:31 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 4127 invoked by uid 1000); 8 Sep 2021 19:36:31 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8735qeg9ed.fsf@posteo.net> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, 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:274385 Archived-At: Hello, Philip. On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 19:22:18 +0000, Philip Kaludercic wrote: > Alan Mackenzie writes: > > It is more readable in the same way Cobol was very readable; each small > > grouping of text is immediately understandable. But the thing as a > > whole? The rx form of that regexp takes up 6 lines, the string form 1 > > line. If there are several regexps in a function rx can lead to a lot of > > bloat. Having the function fit entirely on one's screen contributes a > > lot towards readability and maintainability. > The reason I use rx in a lot of my scripts is that I can add comments, > explanations, formatting, etc. when it gets complicated. I think that is > a significant advantage, that even raw strings wouldn't have (unless a > comment syntax were to be added into the regular expression language, > which is unlikely). Yes, I can see that. rx certainly has advantages. But it has disadvantages too, which Mattias appears not to want to admit exist. To be honest, I suspect the differences in readability/maintainability between the two forms will be small. Maintaining Emacs, it is most helpful to have at least a reading competence with both forms. > -- > Philip Kaludercic -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).