Re: rx.el sexp regexp syntax

[Stefan Monnier]

> rx.el is one of the best concepts I've discovered in a long time.
> It's another instance of "Don't come up with a new (mini)language when
> Lisp can do better": it's easier to learn, more flexible, easier to
> write, much easier to read and as a consequence much more maintainable.

FWIW, I find it's cumbersome in RX to define regexps piecewise.
E.g. with strings I can do things like:

    (let* ((word-re "\\(?:\\sw\\|s_\\)+")
           (spc-re "[ \t\n]*")
           (re1 (concat spc-re "\\(" word-re "\\)" spc-re))
           (re2 (concat spc-re "\\(" word-re "\\)(" word-re))))

but do the same with RX you need something like:

    (let* ((word-re (rx ...))
           (spc-re (rx ...))
           (re1 (rx-to-string `(... ,spc-re ... ,word-re ...)))
           (re2 (rx-to-string `(... ,spc-re ... ,word-re ...))))

I think `rx` would benefit from allowing to refer to variables.


    Stefan