[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: regular expressions that match nothing
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: regular expressions that match nothing |
Date: |
Fri, 17 May 2019 09:43:01 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) |
Hello, Phil.
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:18:49 +1200, Phil Sainty wrote:
> > 15 maj 2019 kl. 21.41 skrev Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>:
> >> I think regexp-unmatchable is too much of a mouthful.
> I like it, myself. I think the meaning is 100% clear and unambiguous
> for the reader (which I can't say about the alternative suggestions
> that I've seen).
I find it too difficult to read. My brain simply doesn't recognise it
instantly, the way it would re-nomatch. At the moment, given there is
no similar symbol name in Emacs, this is less urgent, but if more
similar long symbols were introduced this would be a pain - a minor pain
yes, but a pain nevertheless.
> Are we expecting this to be used so much that we're prioritising
> brevity over clarity?
Brevity is clarity - up to a point. We write `defun', not
`define-function'. Who would argue that the latter of these is clearer?
Why has nobody commented on my suggestion of using re- rather than
regexp- as the prefix? We already have re-search-forward.
> (That's a genuine question -- I have a similar definition in my own
> config, and I have exactly one use for it.)
There are quite a few uses of "a\\`" in CC Mode. If they were to be
replaced by regexp-unmatchable, I might have to re-flow the code, to
avoid it going too far over 80 columns.
> On 2019-05-16 22:54, Mattias Engdegård wrote:
> > 4. The point of this name isn't to be shorter than the regexp string
> > it represents, but to be more readable and avoid mistakes and
> > substandard reinventions.
> Quite.
> > 2. (rx (or)) is even shorter than re-nomatch, and is very memorable.
> > (rx (|)) is shorter still.
This is undesirable in source files which don't otherwise use rx. It's
also cryptic, forcing some readers to do research.
> I don't think those are much better than people using "a\\`".
> *Surely* `rx` can simply acquire a symbol for this?
> (rx unmatchable) or similar?
> -Phil
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- regular expressions that match nothing, philippe schnoebelen, 2019/05/14
- Re: regular expressions that match nothing, Mattias Engdegård, 2019/05/14
- Re: regular expressions that match nothing, Stefan Monnier, 2019/05/14
- Re: regular expressions that match nothing, Mattias Engdegård, 2019/05/15
- Re: regular expressions that match nothing, Alan Mackenzie, 2019/05/15
- Re: regular expressions that match nothing, Mattias Engdegård, 2019/05/16
- Re: regular expressions that match nothing, Phil Sainty, 2019/05/16
- Re: regular expressions that match nothing,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: regular expressions that match nothing, Mattias Engdegård, 2019/05/17
- Re: regular expressions that match nothing, Stefan Monnier, 2019/05/17
- Re: regular expressions that match nothing, Michael Heerdegen, 2019/05/15
- Re: regular expressions that match nothing, Stefan Monnier, 2019/05/15
- Re: regular expressions that match nothing, Mattias Engdegård, 2019/05/15
- Re: regular expressions that match nothing, Michael Heerdegen, 2019/05/15
- More re odditie [Was: regular expressions that match nothing], phs, 2019/05/16
- Re: More re odditie [Was: regular expressions that match nothing], Mattias Engdegård, 2019/05/16
- Re: More re odditie [Was: regular expressions that match nothing], phs, 2019/05/16
- Re: More re odditie [Was: regular expressions that match nothing], Stefan Monnier, 2019/05/16