[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cond*
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: cond* |
Date: |
Tue, 02 Jan 2024 23:13:58 -0500 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> ‘(rx RX-EXPR...)’
> Matches strings against the regexp RX-EXPR..., using the ‘rx’
> regexp notation (*note Rx Notation::), as if by ‘string-match’.
That seems natural enough, though I don't recall the details of `rx'.
(I have never used it myself.) But I need to underdstand this too:
> In addition to the usual ‘rx’ syntax, RX-EXPR... can contain the
> following constructs:
> ‘(let REF RX-EXPR...)’
> Bind the symbol REF to a submatch that matches RX-EXPR....
> REF is bound in BODY-FORMS to the string of the submatch or
> ‘nil’, but can also be used in ‘backref’.
I don't understand that description. I don't see what this construct
would look like inside of an (rx ...) pattern, let alone what it would
mean.
Can you show me a complete pattern example using (rx...) and this, and
explain it?
--
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
- Re: cond*, (continued)
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2024/01/07
- Re: cond*, Ihor Radchenko, 2024/01/10
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2024/01/12
- Re: cond*, Adam Porter, 2024/01/13
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2024/01/15
- Re: cond*, Ihor Radchenko, 2024/01/13
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2024/01/14
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2024/01/07
- Re: cond*, Ihor Radchenko, 2024/01/08
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2024/01/26
Re: cond*,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: cond*, Ihor Radchenko, 2024/01/03
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2024/01/05
- Re: cond*, Ihor Radchenko, 2024/01/06
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2024/01/07
- Re: cond*, Ihor Radchenko, 2024/01/08
- Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2024/01/26
Re: cond*, Richard Stallman, 2024/01/02