Re: "rx"

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Evan Hanson <evhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The shift from "regexp" to "rx" partway through the API feels clumsy. To
me, it signals a difference in meaning where AFAICT there isn't one.

This is in fact very deliberate, because these functions

are acting on a different data type.

I'm not too happy with the names myself though, but

couldn't think of anything better.  I'm open to other input.

IMHO, the `rx-match` record type should rather be called "regexp-match",
or simply "match". This would align the rx-* procedures with the rest of
the API in clarity of names. (I recognize the collision on
`regexp-match?`, but that procedure could instead be called
"regexp-occurs?" or somesuch, which I'd argue is more descriptive
anyway.)

Well, regexp-occurs? would imply a search, but regexp-match? is

matching the whole string.

(Sorry for what some might consider bikeshedding, but I do think good
names matter.)

Bikeshedding is fine, we might as well get it out of the

way now.

-- 

Alex