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: Improve `replace-regexp-in-string' ergonomics? Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:34:57 -0400 Message-ID: References: <878rzpw7jo.fsf@gnus.org> <875yuban9b.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <871r4qalit.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87h7dme953.fsf@gnus.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="1949"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Juri Linkov , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 12 14:38:32 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 1maH3A-0000Lf-5T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 14:38:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49204 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1maH39-00087z-0H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:38:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54790) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1maGzq-0003tw-HW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:35:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:1079) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1maGzn-0005Mr-HQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:35:05 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A878F10038B; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 89EB7100134; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:34:58 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1634042098; bh=GAB/JLlVfacuivcwPYMJgV4U3LRT+vxAu0UJi5vuZNQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=WzeSmQTpBnXohIWzNlV1/FNA17IkmR8ycGWmOU6IM3AW5hBnSVBGNSPqr4ck5bGWK 7LseMLeBrFyEKzyigIcceFJ5RbsiQqempS4j7sJ2PnMyTA/3oNzQBHbcTpFRVWFN4j WPJSFiIyLQZpybMgjQr8wBoHwdsV3AHG3tj0fR1BhU1WAkxnrZCk5Z8r/Xn+mefvpi E+1mFUrHIi5/+GnairRACSCwC0SQ0qfKpAb/85EXGmDNGApvy2dwTtpCvpxCYETP+7 Hvxim7sqL4bB3vxCzVMHBBg4xB9XCjGBzQxg92REil8z19Kn7U9yS7U9Trf2yVN+wv EKAUepTFXGmGQ== Original-Received: from milanesa (unknown [45.72.241.23]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C7AE120257; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:34:58 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87h7dme953.fsf@gnus.org> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Tue, 12 Oct 2021 14:10:32 +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:276786 Archived-At: > But the reason I haven't started working on this yet is that I don't see > a way past the limit we have on nine back references, and it wouldn't be > cool to have such an arbitrary limit here. Basically (like in `syntax-propertize-rules`) you need to disallow backrefs. The upside is that it gives the warm&fuzzy feeling that we could speed it up with a DFA implementation ;-) BTW, the current limit on backrefs is just due to a lack of syntax for higher-numbered backrefs, so it would be easy to lift this limit: it's a small matter of choosing an appropriate syntax and then adjusting the code that parses the regexps in regexp.c. Stefan