Subject: bug#36496: [PATCH] Describe the rx notation in the lisp manual

From: Richard Stallman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 19:46:37 -0400

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Do you mean they'd accept a quoted `rx' form (list)?
  > What would a use case be - as opposed to accepting
  > the result of macro-expanding such a form?  Assuming
  > there's good use case, maybe so. 

Quoting is a little more brief than writing (rx ...).

  > [But there may be some functions that already have a
  > (different) interpretation of a list value for the
  > same arg that could alternatively be a regexp string.
  > (So maybe not "all" such functions.)]

Are there any?  If so, it would be desirable to change them.

  > Even assuming such a use case, should the compiler
  > assume that _every_ such list arg should be compiled
  > to a regexp string?

Why not?  Is there any case in which it would be better
to translate the rx to a regexp at run time?

  > > The only problem is, which key would it be?

  > Some non-repeatable key.  Some key that can't be
  > used (by default) to edit minibuffer text.  Maybe
  > something like `C-x x'?

Is there any reasonable one-character key?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)