rx.el sexp regexp syntax (WAS: Off Topic)

[Noam Postavsky]

On 24 May 2018 at 05:03, Robert Pluim <address@hidden> wrote:
> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

>>   > > We have such things but we haven't adopted any of them in Emacs itself.
>>
>>   > Doesn't rx.el qualify?
>>
>> It's an example of what I said.  We have it, but we don't actually use it
>> much if at all.  This suggests to me that it has drawbacks which prevent
>> it from being clearly superior.

Ah, I misunderstood what you meant by "adopted".

> Iʼve never used rx.el because I didnʼt know it existed. Itʼs not
> described in the regular expression chapter of the emacs lisp
> reference manual, nor in the emacs user manual.
>
>> If someone comes up with a replacement syntax that reduces the drawbacks,
>> we might start using it all the time.
>
> Documenting rx.el would be a more productive use of time, I think,
> especially since Iʼve now noticed via reading rx.el that we already
> have sregex as well. Let's pick one rather than inventing a third
> syntax.

sregex.el is in lisp/obsolete/, so we have picked rx.el.