|
From: | Martin Stone Davis |
Subject: | Re: rx vs sregex - a "match" to the death |
Date: | Sun, 05 Oct 2003 10:08:08 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 |
Oliver Scholz wrote:
Martin Stone Davis <m0davis@pacbell.net> writes:Who likes `rx'? Who likes `sregex'? Who likes `rx' more than `sregex'? Who likes `sregex' more than `rx'? Why?From the commentary section of rx.el:This is another implementation of sexp-form regular expressions. It was unfortunately written without being aware of the Sregex package coming with Emacs, but as things stand, Rx completely covers all regexp features, which Sregex doesn't, doesn't suffer from the bugs mentioned in the commentary section of Sregex, and uses a nicer syntax (IMHO, of course :-). Personally I don't know about the nicer syntax, because I never tried sregex. For the very reason that I discovered rx first. Oliver
Thanks for pointing that out. I should have thought to read there.While I was comparing the two functions, I could not find if/how rx handles numbered backreferences. It's done in sregex like this:
;; (sregexq (group (or "Go" "Run")) ;; ", Spot, " ;; (backref 1)) => "\\(Go\\|Run\\), Spot, \\1" How do you do the same using rx?I should also mention that sregex does not try to optimize `or' constructs. rx automatically runs regexp-opt on any (or ...) it sees.
-Martin
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |