[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: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 11:45:35 +0300

> From: Michael Heerdegen <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2018 16:35:32 +0200
> > If you fear that having this sentence in the doc string will somehow
> > preclude us from making the code change, or make it harder, then the
> > doc string already says that, so if there's a problem, it is already
> > with us, no?
> No, my fear is that users or package maintainers rely on what we
> document now although we surely know what we add to the docs won't hold
> later.  IOW, what you suggest to document is a misfeature we want to get
> rid of very soon.  I intend to do this right after this commit we speak
> about here (but in master).  The main effect would be a merge conflict.
> > > AFAIK, in `let' VAR must be a symbol, but it seems the submatch is also
> > > numbered as side effect, e.g.
> > > 
> > > (pcase "Hala"
> > >   ((rx "H" (let x "a") (regex ".*") (backref 1)) x))
> > > ==> "a"
> >
> > So you agree that "explicitly named" is a better wording?
> I think it would be an improvement, yes.

OK, fixed as discussed and pushed to the emacs-26 branch.


reply via email to

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