GNU bug report logs - #60196
29.0.60; re-builder should read all forms for the rx syntax

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 60196 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kai Ma <justksqsf <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 29.0.60; re-builder should read all forms for the rx syntax
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 17:02:27 +0800

Severity: wishlist

re-builder (rx syntax) currently cannot read multiple forms.  This
results in suboptimal user experience.  For example, even though

    (rx "<i>" (group (*? anychar)) "</i>")

is perfectly fine, but in re-builder, one has to write it as follows:

    '(and "<i>" (group (*? anychar)) "</i>")

Ideally, re-builder should allow users to simply write

    "<i>" (group (*? anychar)) "</i>"

(The relevant function seems to be 'reb-cook-regexp'.)

	Kai

Message #8 received at 60196 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
To: Kai Ma <justksqsf <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 60196 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#60196: 29.0.60; re-builder should read all forms for the rx syntax
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 13:28:14 +0100

The handling of rx input in re-builder is indeed unsatisfactory. We could adopt your proposed solution:

> Ideally, re-builder should allow users to simply write
> 
>     "<i>" (group (*? anychar)) "</i>"

which would be a definite improvement. We could also accept a Lisp expression that is evaluated, so that you'd write

    (rx "<i>" (group (*? anychar)) "</i>")

On the surface this looks more verbose, but since re-builder itself would provide the `(rx )` boilerplate, there wouldn't actually be any more typing. The main advantage would be that regexps could be built up from smaller pieces:

    (rx-let ((spaces (* " "))
             (identifier (: alpha (* alnum))))
      (rx identifier spaces "->" spaces identifier))

Either would be a definite improvement to the current rather strange re-builder behaviour with respect to rx input. Any preference?

Message #11 received at 60196 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kai Ma <justksqsf <at> gmail.com>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
Cc: 60196 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#60196: 29.0.60; re-builder should read all forms for the rx
 syntax
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 21:45:21 +0800

> On Dec 30, 2022, at 20:28, Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org> wrote:
> 
> The handling of rx input in re-builder is indeed unsatisfactory. We could adopt your proposed solution:
> 
>> Ideally, re-builder should allow users to simply write
>> 
>>    "<i>" (group (*? anychar)) "</i>"
> 
> which would be a definite improvement. We could also accept a Lisp expression that is evaluated, so that you'd write
> 
>    (rx "<i>" (group (*? anychar)) "</i>")
> 
> On the surface this looks more verbose, but since re-builder itself would provide the `(rx )` boilerplate, there wouldn't actually be any more typing.

Good point!  And it is much easier to copy a whole Sexpr.

> The main advantage would be that regexps could be built up from smaller pieces:
> 
>    (rx-let ((spaces (* " "))
>             (identifier (: alpha (* alnum))))
>      (rx identifier spaces "->" spaces identifier))
> 
> Either would be a definite improvement to the current rather strange re-builder behaviour with respect to rx input. Any preference?

I like your proposal better! :-)

Previous Next

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