Re: regular expressions that match nothing

[Phil Sainty]

> 15 maj 2019 kl. 21.41 skrev Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>:
> > I think regexp-unmatchable is too much of a mouthful.

I like it, myself.  I think the meaning is 100% clear and unambiguous
for the reader (which I can't say about the alternative suggestions
that I've seen).

Are we expecting this to be used so much that we're prioritising
brevity over clarity?

(That's a genuine question -- I have a similar definition in my own
config, and I have exactly one use for it.)


On 2019-05-16 22:54, Mattias Engdegård wrote:
> 4. The point of this name isn't to be shorter than the regexp string
>    it represents, but to be more readable and avoid mistakes and
>    substandard reinventions.

Quite.


> 2. (rx (or)) is even shorter than re-nomatch, and is very memorable.
>    (rx (|)) is shorter still.

I don't think those are much better than people using "a\\`".

*Surely* `rx` can simply acquire a symbol for this?

(rx unmatchable) or similar?


-Phil