Re: [ELPA] New package: xr

[Michael Heerdegen]

Mattias Engdegård <address@hidden> writes:

> Good defaults are just as important. I thought that one-or-more would
> be more descriptive than + or 1+ for those not familiar with the rx
> notation, but perhaps this was a mistake.

Not a mistake, not just what everybody wants.  Dunno what the majority
wants.  But I think as a default it could be right, because it's
something at least everybody understands.

> Which would you prefer as default symbol from each of these sets?

I didn't bother with regexps very often, so count my opinion as the
opinion of some random user.

>  one-or-more 1+ +
>  zero-or-more 0+ *
>  zero-or-one optional opt ?

+, *, ?, because they are short and what I'm used to from string regexps.

>  repeat **  (for lower-upper-bounded repetition)
>  repeat =   (for exact-count repetition)
>  any char in
>  not-newline nonl
>  group submatch

Don't have preferences yet here.

>  line-start bol
>  line-end eol
>  string-start buffer-start bos bot
>  string-end buffer-end eos eot
>  word-start bow
>  word-end eow

bol, eol, bos, eos, bow, eow: short and easy to remember.

>  sequence seq and :

I guess seq.

>  or |

|.

>  regexp regex

I always look up which is the right one.  Oh - they work both?  Cool.


Michael.