Re: [External] : [PATCH] Interpret #r"..." as a raw string

[Naoya Yamashita]

Thanks Stefan,

>>     (ert-deftest lread-raw-string-usage-2 ()
>>       (should (equal
>>                (let ((str "(def\\macro leaf () nil)"))
>>                  (string-match "(\\(def\\\\macro\\) \\([^ ]+\\)" str)
>>                  (list (match-string 1 str) (match-string 2 str)))
>>                '("def\\macro" "leaf")))
>>     
>>       (should (equal
>>                (let ((str "(def\\macro leaf () nil)"))
>>                  (string-match #r"(\(def\macro\) \([^ ]+\)" str)
>>                  (list (match-string 1 str) (match-string 2 str)))
>>                '("def\\macro" "leaf"))))
> 
> [ Note the above has a bug: the raw-string regexp equivalent to
>   "(\\(def\\\\macro\\) \\([^ ]+\\)" is #r"(\(def\\macro\) \([^ ]+\)"
>   notice the double backslash between "def" and "macro".  ]

I think it has no bug, all test I introduce is passed by my patched Emacs.

    the raw-string regexp equivalent to
    "(\\(def\\\\macro\\) \\([^ ]+\\)" is #r"(\(def\\macro\) \([^ ]+\)

Yes, I agree, but

    notice the double backslash between "def" and "macro".

I have question on it.  You 'see' double backslash between "def"
and "macro" but actually one backslash is placed between "def" and "macro"

If I wrote test string with raw-string notation, it shold be below.

    (should (equal
             (let ((str #r"(def\macro leaf () nil)"))
               (string-match #r"(\(def\macro\) \([^ ]+\)" str)
               (list (match-string 1 str) (match-string 2 str)))
             '(#r"def\macro" "leaf")))

Wow, this is easy to understand.  We can now write the matching
string as a literal as is!

> For regexps, this has been discussed to death already, but a better
> option is arguably to introduce a macro that converts from the
> non-backslashed regexp style to the backslashed regexp style.
> That would require even fewer backslashes in most cases (tho not in
> this example because of the presence of a literal \ in the regexp).

As my understanding, macro is not useful to allow raw-string notion.
We need reader-macro instead?  But we don't have a reader-macro in Elisp.

I think it is better by introducing reader-macro and making the
reader user-extensible, it would be a straightforward way to
define this raw-string notation in user-space, but the job was
too big, so I added just this process to the reader.

> IOW, I think regexps are a poor motivation to introduce raw strings.

Thanks, but many language support this sort of notation to easy
write string literal without thinking any escape.
I want to still want to use also in Elisp.