GNU bug report logs - #50136
28.0.50; A problem with rx-let expansion

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
Cc: 50136 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: bug#50136: 28.0.50; A problem with rx-let expansion
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:59:11 +0200

Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org> writes:

> Here is my proposed change to the manual. I didn't change the doc
> strings since they already refer to that Info node.

Maybe at least one sentence about that this mechanism just performs
trivial substitution?

> +User-defined forms themselves only perform simple template
> +substitution.

I find the term "user-defined" distracting, because anybody (including
library and package developers) is "affected".  Apart from that, ok for
me.

>  For arbitrary computations, use them together with with
> +the @code{rx} forms @code{eval}, @code{regexp} or @code{literal}.
> +Example:
> +
> +@example
> +@group
> +(defun n-tuple-rx (n element)
> +  `(seq "<"
> +        (group-n 1 ,element)
> +        ,@@(mapcar (lambda (i) `(seq ?, (group-n ,i ,element)))
> +                  (number-sequence 2 n))
> +        ">"))
> +(rx-define n-tuple (n element) (eval (n-tuple-rx n 'element)))
> +(rx (n-tuple 3 (+ (in "0-9"))))
> +  @result{} "<\\(?1:[0-9]+\\),\\(?2:[0-9]+\\),\\(?3:[0-9]+\\)>"
> +@end group
> +@end example
>  @end defmac

Didn't try the example, but it looks good.


I have one more thing, however, once we are here: In the docstring of
`rx', near the end:

| (eval EXPR)    Match the rx sexp from evaluating EXPR at compile time.

can we say "expansion time" instead of "compile time"?


Regards,

Michael.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.