[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Clarify `pcase' `rx' pattern doc

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Clarify `pcase' `rx' pattern doc
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2018 09:53:30 +0300

> From: Michael Heerdegen <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:57:29 +0200
> > + [...]  If the target is not a string, signal an error.
> We want to change that, so I think you can drop that sentence.

Shouldn't it be dropped when that change is committed?

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

Is it redundant even when VAR is not a submatch number, but a symbol?

Btw, in this part:

> +  (let VAR SEXP...)  creates a new explicitly numbered submatch
> +                     that matches regular expressions SEXP, and
> +                     binds the match to VAR.

Does "explicitly numbered" mean that VAR must be a number?  If it can
be something else, perhaps "explicitly named" is better?

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


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]