[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 Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Evan Hanson <evhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2013-10-20 12:26, John Cowan wrote:
> Alex Shinn scripsit:
> > How about renaming it "submatch"?
> >
> >   submatch?
> >   submatch-string
> >   submatch-start
> >   submatch-end
> I think that's confusing if you aren't actually using submatches.  I
> would favor either switching to "match" (and no, I don't think
> name collision is so important in this case), or using the explicit
> form "regexp-result", which describes what the object actually is.

I agree that this is confusing, even in the presence of "real"
submatches; you'd then have a submatch, with its own submatches
("subsubmatches"?), and no match to speak of. Some of the procedure
names would be OK, but as the record type name I don't think it's as
clear as "match".

Well, it _is_ a submatch, 0.  This may or may not
contain nested submatches 1 or higher, which may
themselves contains nested submatches, etc., but
I've never heard anyone call a nested submatch a

Anyway, the match- prefix both conflicts with the
pattern matching library and obscures any relation
to regular expressions, so that's not an option.

I could live with:


Anyone with a preference is free to email me their
(ordered) vote.