On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:35:57PM -0800, Pauan wrote: > It was brought up that my explanation was confusing, and I agree it is. > So I'll try again. The following should return #t: ... > (regexp-match? "\\n" "\n")
I am confused about a number of things in your emails, so for simplicity I'm focusing on the above expression only. Your email subject mentions pregexp, but your pattern is a string literal, which AFAICT will be compiled into a regular expression using regexp not pregexp. Therefore it isn't clear whether you are suggesting a change to regexp syntax or pregexp syntax. Currently, #rx"\\n" matches like #rx"n" and #px"\\n" is an error: > (regexp-match? #rx"\\n" "n") #t > #px"\\n" readline-input::569: read: bad pregexp string: illegal alphabetic escape Both of these behaviors agree with the syntax documented at http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/regexp.html?q=regexp-match%3F#(part._regexp-syntax) To add to my confusion, your original email mentioned #px"\\\\n", which currently matches a backslash followed by an 'n'. Perhaps you are suggesting that #px"\\n" should mean the same as #px"\n" rather than being an error? I don't see a need for this but perhaps you have a rationale in mind? David _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev