Re: Add some aliases for re-related functions

[Dmitry Gutov]

Allow me to bikeshed a little too.

On 03.05.2020 00:33, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > While debating whether it’s effective to add prefixes to increase
> > discoverability, lets start with incremental and uncontroversial
> > changes. Let’s start from re-related functions since it seems that many
> > people agree on this. Here is a list of functions that I think could benefit
> > from an alias.
>
> I don't have an opinion on the "re-" vs "regexp-" prefix, so I'll
> concentrate on the non-prefix part, where the problem is to try and keep
> things short.

Same.

> > replace-regexp-in-string        re-replace-in-string
>
> LGTM.

+

> > replace-match                   re-replace-match
>
> Maybe this can be shortened to `re-replace`?

re-replace sounds like it will take both the regexp and the replacement 
as argument. The 'match' word is meaningful.

> > string-match                    re-search-in-string
> > string-match-p          re-match-in-string-p
>
> Hmm... a bit long for my taste.  How 'bout `re-search(-p)`?

re-match and re-match-p?

> > match-string                    re-matched-string
> > match-string-no-properties      re-matched-string-no-properties
> > match-beginning         re-match-beginning
> > match-end                       re-match-end
>
> How 'bout `re-submatch(-no-properties|beg|end)`?

It's ok. But I'd just prepend 're-' to existing functions instead.

> > looking-at                      re-match-after-point
> > looking-back                    re-match-before-point
>
> [ I'm trying to use "search" and "match" in the way it's used in
>    traditional regexp libraries.  ]

Guess I'm unfamiliar with said libraries. I'd suggest re-looking-at and 
re-looking-back (or whatever, like, don't create an alias for the last 
one if we don't want to).

> `re-match` and `re-match-back`?

Both sound like they will move point.

> The problem with this is that I proposed `re-search` to apply to strings
> whereas I now propose `re-match` to apply to buffers.  So maybe it
> should be `re-match-forward` and `re-match-backward`?

It's fairly hard to distinguish, without reading the docs, from 
re-search-forward and -backward.