Skip to content
Elisp regexp lint tool
Branch: master
Clone or download
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Permalink
Type Name Latest commit message Commit time
Failed to load latest commit information.
README.org
relint.el

README.org

relint.el

Relint (regular expression lint) scans elisp files for mistakes in regexps, including deprecated syntax and bad practice. It also checks the regexp-like arguments to skip-chars-forward and skip-chars-backward.

Usage

Check a single file:

M-x relint-file

Check all .el files in a directory tree:

M-x relint-directory

Check current buffer:

M-x relint-current-buffer

From batch mode:

emacs -batch -l relint.el -f relint-batch FILES-AND-DIRS...

where directories are scanned recursively. (Options for finding relint and xr need to be added after -batch, either -f package-initialize or -L DIR.)

In the *relint* buffer, pressing “g” will re-run the same check.

Installation

From GNU ELPA:

M-x package-install RET relint RET

Relint requires the package xr; install it from GNU ELPA.

What the diagnostics mean

Unescaped literal ‘X’

A special character is taken literally because it occurs in a position where it does not need to be backslash-escaped. It is good style to do so anyway (assuming that it should occur as a literal character).

Escaped non-special character ‘X’

A character is backslash-escaped even though this is not necessary and does not turn it into a special sequence. Maybe the backslash was in error, or should be doubled if a literal backslash was expected.

Duplicated ‘X’ inside character alternative

A character occurs twice inside [...]; this is obviously pointless. In particular, backslashes are not special inside [...]; they have no escaping power, and do not need to be escaped in order to include a literal backslash.

Repetition of repetition

A repetition construct is applied to an expression that is already repeated, such as a*+ (? counts as repetition here). Such expressions can be written with a single repetition and often indicate a different mistake, such as missing backslashes.

Reversed range ‘Y-X’ matches nothing

The last character of a range precedes the first and therefore includes no characters at all (not even the endpoints). Most such ranges are caused by a misplaced hyphen.

Character ‘B’ included in range ‘A-C’

A range includes a character that also occurs individually. This is often caused by a misplaced hyphen.

Ranges ‘A-M’ and ‘D-Z’ overlap

Two ranges have at least one character in common. This is often caused by a misplaced hyphen.

Two-character range ‘A-B’

A range only consists of its two endpoints, since they have consecutive character codes. This is often caused by a misplaced hyphen.

Duplicated character class ‘[:class:]’

A character class occurs twice in a single character alternative or skip set.

Duplicated alternative branch

The same expression occurs in two different branches, like in A\|A. This has the effect of only including it once.

Uncounted repetition

The construct A\{,\} repeats A zero or more times which was probably not intended.

Implicit zero repetition

The construct A\{\} only matches the empty string, which was probably not intended.

Suspect ‘[’ in char alternative

This warning indicates badly-placed square brackets in a character alternative, as in [A[B]C]. A literal ] must come first (possibly after a negating ^).

Literal ‘-’ not first or last

It is good style to put literal hyphens last in character alternatives and skip sets, to clearly indicate that it was not intended as part of a range.

Repetition of zero-width assertion

A repetition operator was applied to a zero-width assertion, like ^ or \<, which is completely pointless. The error may be a missing escaping backslash.

Repetition of expression matching an empty string

A repetition operator was applied to a sub-expression that could match the empty string; this is not necessarily wrong, but such constructs run very slowly on Emacs’s regexp engine. Consider rewriting them into a form where the repeated expression cannot match the empty string.

Example: \(?:a*b*\)* is equivalent to the much faster \(?:a\|b\)*.

Another example: \(?:a?b*\)? is better written a?b*.

In general, A?, where A matches the empty string, can be simplified to just A.

Unnecessarily escaped ‘X’

A character is backslash-escaped in a skip set despite not being one of the three special characters - (hyphen), \ (backslash) and ^ (caret). It could be unnecessary, or a backslash that should have been escaped.

Single-element range ‘X-X’

A range in a skip set has identical first and last elements. It is rather pointless to have it as a range.

Stray ‘\’ at end of string

A single backslash at the end of a skip set is always ignored; double it if you want a literal backslash to be included.

Suspect skip set framed in ‘[…]’

A skip set appears to be enclosed in [...], as if it were a regexp. Skip sets are not regexps and do not use brackets. To include the brackets themselves, put them next to each other.

Suspect character class framed in ‘[…]’

A skip set contains a character class enclosed in double pairs of square brackets, as if it were a regexp. Character classes in skip sets are written inside a single pair of square brackets, like [:digit:].

Empty set matches nothing

The empty string is a skip set that does not match anything, and is therefore pointless.

Negated empty set matches anything

The string “^” is a skip set that matches anything, and is therefore pointless.

‘X’ cannot be used for arguments to ‘F’

An expression that looks like a regexp was given as an argument to a function that expects a skip-set.

Value from ‘X’ cannot be spliced into ‘[…]’

An expression that looks like a regexp was used to form a string where it is surrounded by square brackets, as if it were part of a character alternative. Regexps are not valid inside character alternatives; they use a different syntax.

If you are just building a string containing a regexp for display purposes, consider using other delimiters than square brackets; displaying the regexp 0-9 as [0-9] is very misleading.

Bugs

The recognition of regexps is done by ad-hoc rules; the simplistic method employed means that many errors will go undetected.

Still, if you believe that a flawed regexp could have been discovered but wasn’t, please report it as a bug. Reports of false positives and crashes are of course equally welcome.

You can’t perform that action at this time.