Proposal for exact matching and matching at a position in RegExp

Andy Chu andy at
Tue Mar 2 23:28:00 PST 2010

> Heh. :-) I've posted half of a response at
> , 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.

I looked it over again.  All of it seems good to me, except:

1) The 2 things about backreferences.  I haven't really run into these
personally so I guess I'm agnostic.  But the arguments about why
they're not bad for compatibility aren't super compelling.  I guess I
question whether enough people have run into it to justify the
potential breakage.

2) The personal preference stuff I did not really evaluate, but my
bias would be toward keeping compatibility.

(If it's really a goal to create an entirely new RegEx (no p) class,
those things could be addressed there.  Although I think that proposal
is problematic too since it is a burden on implementers to have 1.5
regex implementations.)


More information about the es-discuss mailing list