[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "rx"

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 115 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 115 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Evan Hanson <evhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 16/10/13 12:10, Alex Shinn wrote:
> I'm not too happy with the names myself though, but
> couldn't think of anything better.  I'm open to other input.

I propose one of the following:

1. Rename the `rx-match` type (and related procedures) to "regexp-match",
and `regexp-match?` to "regexp-matches?" to avoid the new conflict.

("regexp-matches?" doesn't strike me as particularly better or worse
than "regexp-match?", but it is more clearly not a type predicate and
reads similarly to other procedures, viz. `file-exists?` or the proposed

2. Rename the `rx-match` type to "match" and leave `regexp-match?`

My very slight preference is for 2 -- the module system affords us the
freedom to use the more general names -- but I'd be happy with either.

How about renaming it "submatch"?