[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: extended rx.el
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: extended rx.el |
Date: |
Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:28:33 -0400 |
Currently both sregex.el and rx.el do regexps as sexps and there's a
separate notation of Shivers' which they don't try to be compatible
with. These changes generalize rx.el in various ways and make it
more-or-less compatible with sregex as far as I can tell and allow SRE
forms where possible, which may provide a better chance of remembering
the names. The exception I know is that the `repeat' form is
restricted relative to sregex. Apart from that, I think you could use
`rx' and `rx-to-string' as aliases for the corresponding sregex names.
It sounds like a good idea to simplify these two packages into one.
Could you explain more about how `repeat' is more restricted in rx?
Re: extended rx.el,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: extended rx.el, Dave Love, 2004/04/26
- Re: extended rx.el, Richard Stallman, 2004/04/27
- Re: extended rx.el, Dave Love, 2004/04/29
- Re: extended rx.el, Stefan Monnier, 2004/04/29
- Re: extended rx.el, Richard Stallman, 2004/04/30