bug#36237: Support (rx (and (regexp EXPR) (regexp-quote EXPR)))

[Mattias Engdegård]

23 juni 2019 kl. 00.05 skrev Noam Postavsky <npostavs@gmail.com>:
> 
> Yeah, that applies to most of the examples actually.  Updated (and I
> found a couple of mistakes in them).

Very good, thank you! I double-checked them with xr and only found one error 
(see below).

>> The paragraph on `eval' uses FORM, which is too generic
> 
> No, it's not generic, see (info "(elisp) Intro Eval"):
> 
>       A Lisp object that is intended for evaluation is called a "form" or
>    "expression"(1).

You are entirely correct, of course; what I meant is that the docs frequently 
use "form" for the `rx' whatchamacallits even though they aren't Lisp 
expressions. The terminology is a mess; use whatever you find understandable.

>squash! Support (rx (and (regexp EXPR) (literal EXPR))) (Bug#36237)

Remnants of rebase editing?

 ;; "[ \t\n]*:\\([^:]+\\|$\\)"
-;; (rx (and (zero-or-more (in " \t\n")) ":"
-;;          (submatch (or line-end (one-or-more (not (any ?:)))))))
+;; (rx (* (in " \t\n")) ":"
+;;     (submatch (or line-end (+ (not (in ?:))))))

The correct translation of the `or'-pattern is

  (or (+ (not (any ":"))) eol)

since the order of the branches matters. Maybe it's the regexp string that 
should be the other way around; hard to tell without any context.

 ;; "^;;\\s-*\n\\|^\n"
-;; (rx (or (and line-start ";;" (0+ space) ?\n)
-;;         (and line-start ?\n)))
+;; (rx (or (seq line-start ";;" (0+ space) ?\n)
+;;         (seq line-start ?\n)))

This should be correct. The regexp compiler translates `[[:space:]]` and `\s-` 
to different bytecodes, but as far as I can tell they end up having identical 
semantics in the end. Same goes for `[[:word:]]' vs `\sw' (alias `\w'), and so 
on.

+`(literal STRING-EXPR)'
+     matches STRING-EXPR literally, where STRING-EXPR is any lisp
+     expression that evaluates to a string.
+
+`(regexp REGEXP-EXPR)'
+     include REGEXP-EXPR in string notation in the result, where
+     REGEXP-EXPR is any lisp expression that evaluates a string
+     containing a valid regexp.

Missed "to" after "evaluate"?

I'm happy with the patch after the obvious fixes.