Re: extended rx.el

[Dave Love]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> So you say that the unification is (repeat N &optional M &rest sexps)?
> Why not say it's either (repeat N SEXP) or (repeat N M SEXP ...) ?
> I.e. if there are more than 2 args, the second is MAX.
> That would be compatible with both rx and sregex, wouldn't it?

Yes, I guess.  Probably the issue was it breaks the model (and
implementation?) that basically replaced all SEXP with SEXP ... in the
forms.  I was quite likely being dense and probably did that when
virus-ridden.  If you're convinced it's OK to generalize, great.