> I'm curious what others think so I'll try to find the irc conversation.
http://racket-lang.org/irc-logs/20111126.txt http://racket-lang.org/irc-logs/20111127.txt http://racket-lang.org/irc-logs/20111128.txt Search for "regexp" > But my first impression is that such a new #px reader syntax > should translate into the existing pregexp syntax, not extend it. It > seems odd to me that #px/\n/ would mean #px"\\n" and that that would be > equivalent to #px"\n". I'm inclined to agree, but eli mentioned that we should tackle the semantics problem separate from the syntax problem... I, personally, am fine with having #px/\n/ be translated into #px"\n". What's important to me is that the syntax that is presented to the user is short and easy to use (e.g. not an excess amount of backslashes). > Were you thinking likewise that #rx/\n/ would translate to #rx"\\n"? > That can't be changed to mean the same as #rx"\n" because #rx"\\n" already > means the same as #rx"n", and presumably we don't want to change the meaning > of existing valid patterns. *Ideally* yes, but it's not a requirement. I understand that breaking existing uses of #rx"\\n" is bad, so I'm okay with the idea extending only to pregexps. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
