Re: Improve `replace-regexp-in-string' ergonomics?

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

But!  I totally thought that the limitation was an actual one on our
regexp libraries for groups, and not just a syntax thing.  So if we just
ignore the backref issue, then things should basically Just Work.

I.e.,

(new-and-spiffy-regexp-replace string
                               "\\(foo\\)" "bar\\1"
                               "\\(bar\\)" "foo\\1"
                               ...)

should work just fine, no matter how many of them you have -- you just
have to transpose the groups down to where they were again before doing
the replacement.  (I mean, after creating the mega-regexp and matching
with that.)

It will break down if the user has a lot of actual backrefs in the
matching regexps, but that's quite rare in practice.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no