Re: extended rx.el

[Stefan Monnier]

>>> I think taking the simple syntax symbols out of the alist in the first
>>> change makes it less clear,
>> 
>> I obviously disagree.  Also implementing it programmatically rather than
>> via a manually managed table has the advantage of being
>> automatically uptodate.

> I'm not sure what it's meant to be automatically up-to-date with.

With the complete list of existing syntax classes.

> At least the doc string of the table should be changed not to imply it's
> complete.

It is complete AFAIK.

>>> and what's wrong with using `bracket' dynamically bound, purely locally
>>> (the second change).
>> And what's wrong with using an explicit prefix?
> I think it makes it less obvious as basically a local variable.  I
> don't understand why it needed to be changed.

Because I think every defvar specific to a package should have
a proper prefix.


        Stefan