[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Removing no-back-reference restriction from syntax-propertize-rules
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Removing no-back-reference restriction from syntax-propertize-rules |
Date: |
Sat, 16 May 2020 09:17:51 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
> right now, the docstring of `syntax-propertize-rules' states that
> back-references aren't supported (which is true). I don't see why that
> has to be the case. It already shifts numbered groups as needed, so why
> can't it simply shift back-references, too?
The original reason was that I want to compile those to DFAs.
But a secondary reason was that every case where backrefs were used in
`font-lock-syntactic-keywords` was very easy to rewrite to not use
backrefs. Do you have an example where backrefs are really important in
`syntax-propertize-rules`?
Stefan
- Removing no-back-reference restriction from syntax-propertize-rules, Tassilo Horn, 2020/05/16
- Re: Removing no-back-reference restriction from syntax-propertize-rules,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: Removing no-back-reference restriction from syntax-propertize-rules, Stefan Monnier, 2020/05/17
- Re: Removing no-back-reference restriction from syntax-propertize-rules, Tassilo Horn, 2020/05/18
- Re: Removing no-back-reference restriction from syntax-propertize-rules, Stefan Monnier, 2020/05/18
- Re: Removing no-back-reference restriction from syntax-propertize-rules, Tassilo Horn, 2020/05/18
- Re: Removing no-back-reference restriction from syntax-propertize-rules, Stefan Monnier, 2020/05/18
- Re: Removing no-back-reference restriction from syntax-propertize-rules, Tassilo Horn, 2020/05/19
- Re: Removing no-back-reference restriction from syntax-propertize-rules, Stefan Monnier, 2020/05/19
- Re: Removing no-back-reference restriction from syntax-propertize-rules, Tassilo Horn, 2020/05/19