[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: rx.el sexp regexp syntax

From: Robert Pluim
Subject: Re: rx.el sexp regexp syntax
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 09:25:52 +0200

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>   > FWIW, I think its verbosity is RX's main *advantage*. It makes regular
>   > expressions so much easier to read that I stopped writing regex strings 
> the
>   > moment I discovered RX.
> The clearer representation of structure is not the same thing as
> verbosity.  rx does both, but they are not the same thing.  We could
> envision making the structure more or less equally clear without
> making the patterns so long.

Itʼs not clear to me how you'd do that. Looking at rx-constituents,
quite a few of the verbose ways of specifying what to match already
have a succinct version, eg

sequence => and
zero-or-more => *

and frankly being able to write 'bos' rather than remembering '\\`' or
'symbol-start' rather than '\\_<' is a net win in my eyes.


reply via email to

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