Sorry for the confusion. Ideally most of the syntax described will
beavailable in both pregexp and regexp mode, but "\\X" and
"\\u{E0}"should probably be restricted to pregexp only.> To add to my confusion, your original email mentioned #px"\\\\n", which> > currently matches a backslash followed by an 'n'. Yes, that was me overthinking things. The pattern I described is a regexpused to match a regexp. In other words, I was saying that #px"\\n" shouldmatch a newline. > 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? Yes that is exactly it. The rationale is as ozzloy said: right now you needto use something like #px"\\\\\\d" to match the string "\\5". That's a lot ofbackslashes! In other languages that support regexps, there's usually a way of specifyingthem so it requires less backslashes. For instance, in JavaScript you can saythis: /\\\d/ But before we can even consider such a syntax, we first need to add in theabove mentioned regexp syntaxes. Because otherwise #px/\n/ would compile into(pregexp "\\n") which would then throw an error, as you noted. So this is thefirst step in enabling such a syntax. I am willing to write the code and unit tests for this. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
