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: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:01:48 -0400 Message-ID: References: <878rzpw7jo.fsf@gnus.org> <8735pxjabj.fsf@gmail.com> <87mto5ja0y.fsf@alphapapa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9438"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Adam Porter Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 22 20:03:09 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 1mT6aK-0002Gb-OY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 20:03:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40386 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mT6aJ-0006hH-KZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:03:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41432) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mT6Z9-0005Lv-Tx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:01:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:36005) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mT6Z7-0000OQ-Mi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:01:55 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id ED4941002F2; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:01:51 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4CD6D10018E; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:01:50 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1632333710; bh=mv1FkDakESpQEHOoH/zQWz1pm+IpgdKASx8Y7LVEdUM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=G0r/W3yyGZdbzS3NvenjXIasYT5eid3mS83PfoTvr/tONs+ou8fTWC3y62oEblzv9 PQDSm7GsAEQrYkxjXodY2Nw8ArXfpV0Zn9a6FlQh/5FAu0/9k2u2FJ7HY3VYaf7ZUm xmdB/vMJvb7KFKRkRhVbKGNvojb2kzlAZNYbN+r9wb3X+oPptFIo3PxhbQR0VPeFGL BPeBHGc5Z8RAqZuStxBb7Br7ULmXG1ageuvy6Tle1bq4FMFHQuKoWKquRCkfhvSwBL kzbZDr2MpQx4Fd6CpoJ19KIHrrswx2B1myiDBsYpqwxbyqfcCL/i0wwuSHtlBaaPJl Rb/JQZ/gQHInw== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.241.23]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27C9A1202F2; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 14:01:50 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87mto5ja0y.fsf@alphapapa.net> (Adam Porter's message of "Wed, 22 Sep 2021 03:21:17 -0500") 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:275330 Archived-At: > (thread-as NAME EXPR &rest FORMS) > > I considered proposing one recently, but it seems like anaphoric macros > aren't popular around here. :) I thought "anaphoric" is used for macros where you don't specify the name of the variable (it's typically the hardcoded `it`), whereas IIUC here you do specify it. I don't like the usual anaphoric macros, but if (thread-as FOO x (bar x 6) ... (toto 45 x)) turns into (let* ((x FOO) (x (bar x 6)) (x ...)) (toto 45 x)) then I wouldn't consider that as "anaphoric" and so wouldn't stay away from it. Stefan