Proposal for exact matching and matching at a position in RegExp

Steve L. steves_list at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 1 04:36:52 PST 2010


On Feb 17, 2010, at 12:45 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:

> I think \G without full Perl compatibility is less desirable  than /y --
> but I would want some solution here, and it should be on  the Harmony
> agenda.

Prior to and after this discussion (I wavered a bit in the middle), I'm 
inclined to agree with you on /y vs. \G. And I'd be very happy to see a 
solution on the Harmony agenda, too.

One more thing regarding /y that just came to mind is that if at some future 
point ECMAScript were to add support for embedded mode modifiers (e.g., 
(?im), (?-im), (?im:...), etc.), which are widely supported elsewhere and 
fairly useful, (?y) would not make sense and would probably need to be an 
error. No big deal though since the same would be true for (?g).

> Perhaps we need you to seed that agenda. Start a new thread to remind us
> of your 95, or just 5 (I hope ;-), theses nailed to the ES3 cathedral
> door.

Heh. :-) I've posted half of a response at 
http://blog.stevenlevithan.com/archives/fixing-javascript-regexp , and 
within the next couple weeks I'll try to follow up on es-discuss with a 
write-up that excludes the less realistic change proposals from that page 
and adds suggested new features (including /y). I'm very interested in which 
proposals from that page you think are most likely to gain any traction, and 
which might not be worth raising for serious consideration.

> To fuel this fire (separate thread is fine, all your theses at once), / x
> already caused ES4 headaches which Waldemar argued are insuperable,  to-do
> with semicolon insertion.

Bummer. Do you have a pointer to the related discussion?

--Steve
 



More information about the es-discuss mailing list