GNU bug report logs - #58727
29.0.50; rx doc: Semantics of RX...

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 58727 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#58727: 29.0.50; rx doc: Semantics of RX...
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 04:34:09 +0200

Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com> writes:

> > The resulting regexps are concatenating like with an implicit `seq'.
> > This is not trivial, though: in stringish regexps the repetition
> > operators are only unary, and different interpretations would make sense
> > for `rx' (implicit `seq', implicit `or').
>
> The rule is implicit concatenation unless specified otherwise; maybe
> we could say that in the leading paragraph. (`or` is the only place
> where concatenation isn't done.)

Yes, that would be good.


> > Oh, and maybe let's also make more clear that `rx' always cares
> > about implicit grouping when necessary.
>
> No, there is no such thing in rx.

I think you misunderstood what I meant, I meant the implicit shy
grouping added in the return value, as in

  (rx (or "ab" "cd")) ==> "\\(?:ab\\|cd\\)"
                           ^^^^^       ^^^
> The manual provides corresponding string-notation constructs for
> orientation only.  This is important -- rx forms are defined by their
> semantics, not by what strings they translate to.

Is this trivial however?  Is it clear that, even for people that see rx
more as a translator to stringish regexps, `rx' is that smart?

A sentence like "rx forms are defined by their semantics" would help to
make that clear I think.
Dunno, I'm just guessing that here is a potential for misunderstanding.

Telling about the implicit concatenation of RX... is the more important
point for me.


Thanks so far,

Michael. 

Previous Next

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