Re: Clarify `pcase' `rx' pattern doc

[Michael Heerdegen]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> How about the below?

> + [...]  If the target is not a string, signal an error.

We want to change that, so I think you can drop that sentence.

 
>  In addition to the usual `rx' constructs, REGEXPS can contain the
>  following constructs:
>  
> -  (let VAR FORM...)  creates a new explicitly numbered submatch
> -                     that matches FORM and binds the match to
> -                     VAR.
> +  (let VAR SEXP...)  creates a new explicitly numbered submatch
> +                     that matches regular expressions SEXP, and
> +                     binds the match to VAR.
>    (backref VAR)      creates a backreference to the submatch
>                       introduced by a previous (let VAR ...)
> -                     construct.
> +                     construct.  VAR can be the same symbol
> +                     in the first argument of the corresponding
> +                     (let VAR ...) construct, or it can be a
> +                     submatch number.  It matches the referenced
> +                     submatch.
>  

Looks ok to me.  But can we remove the sentence saying "Multiple
occurrences of the same VAR refer to the same submatch."?  It's
completely redundant IMHO.

Then, can you please install it (maybe with my issues fixed)?


Thanks,

Michael.