[Continuing from https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2019-09/msg00048.html] Here is a new rx implementation (faster, easier to work with, fewer bugs, better tests), and, as a separate patch, an rx extension mechanism adding the macros `rx-define', `rx-let' and `rx-let-eval'. The first patch is a ground-up rewrite of rx. It should be completely compatible. The second patch adds (rx-define NAME [ARGS] RX) (rx-let ((NAME [ARGS] RX) ...) BODY) (rx-let-eval ((NAME [ARGS] RX) ...) BODY) as mentioned in the emacs-devel thread earlier. Additions to the manual are included. Although I believe this to be a consistent and useful design that could be used as-is, some points worth thinking about are: * Allow for multiple RXs in the definitions, making an implicit (seq ...). This could be done with the Schemeish syntax (rx-define NAME RX...) (rx-define (NAME ARGS...) RX...) which is quite readable as "definition mirrors use". Should then the &rest parameter be declared using a dotted list, as (rx-define (NAME ARG1 ARG2 . ARG-REST) RX...) ? * There is some disagreement regarding whether function-like definitions should be standard Lisp expressions instead of the restricted substitution-based macros in this patch, as in (rx-define whole (x) `(seq bos ,x eos)) I believe the usability of the chosen design is better, but see the point of not reinventing the wheel. * Not entirely satisfied with the name `rx-let-eval', but unless someone comes up with something better, it stands.
0001-New-rx-implementation.patch
Description: Binary data
0002-Add-rx-extension-mechanism.patch
Description: Binary data
--- End Message ---