[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#26338: 26.0.50; Collect all matches for REGEXP in current buffer

From: Drew Adams
Subject: bug#26338: 26.0.50; Collect all matches for REGEXP in current buffer
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 08:42:32 -0700 (PDT)

> > Put all this stuff - and more - into an `eloop' macro.
> > Since it will be so much better and more Emacsy, with
> > specifics that are especially useful for Emacs, it is
> > what users will (eventually) use instead of `cl-loop'.
> >
> > Since it will do everything that `cl-loop' does (and
> > more), eventually only the rare user who needs, or for
> > some reason really wants, code that is CL or close to
> > it will use `cl-loop'.  Everyone else will use `eloop'.
> > No problem.
> I guess that might cause a lot of duplication of code.

Why? The implementation of `cl-loop' or `eloop' could
leverage the implementation of the other, or they could
both leverage the implementation of a helper macro or

> IMO experts CL lispers will be more sad with this emulation
> for the lack of returning multiple values than for the addition
> of some extensions.  They can chose not to use them if they
> don't like them.  Just one opinion too.

It's not about expert CL users.  It's about whether we want
to provide a CL emulation library or not, regardless of how
complete that emulation might be.

If we go the way we're headed, `cl-*' loses all meaning.
It's just a namespace that happens to also include some
constructs that emulate CL constructs, along with lots of
other stuff that does not.

AND along with stuff that kind of emulates but also kind of
does not, i.e., does something that confuses things by seeming,
in some cases, to emulate CL functionality but in other cases
(for the same construct) does something completely un-CL.

I do, completely, see the advantage of adding helpful
functionality, building on CL constructs.  I disagree that
that should be done to what are supposed to be CL-constuct

I do not understand the reticence to do such enhancement in
separate, non-`cl-' functions and macros.  What would be
lost in doing that?  And wrt implementation, IMO that would
end up being simpler, not more complex.  The `cl-' emulation
code is already quite complex.  Separating out non-`cl-'
features from it could only make it simpler.

And any Emacs feature that builds on and enhances an existing
`cl-' feature need not continue to emulate all of the `cl-'
behavior - it has no such obligation.  It can still leverage
commonalities that would be factored out to serve as helpers
for both `cl-' and non-`cl-'.

What's the downside to what I'm suggesting?

reply via email to

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