Re: Unquoted special characters in regexps

[martin rudalics]

> To expand on my previous reply, you are arguing from a purely
> legalistic viewpoint here, based on an error in the manual.  The
> _purpose_ of quoting special characters even when they have no special
> meaning is make clear that they have no special meaning.  "\\]" does
> not clear up any confusion in situations where confusion could be
> possible, so it is completely meaningless.
>
> There is a mistake in the manual.  We should correct that mistake, not
> make meaningless, and even confusing, changes to code.

Do you really think that considering

(string-match "]" "]")

a valid Elisp expression and

(string-match "[" "[")

an invalid one is less confusing?