Jordan Harband ljharb at
Fri Jun 12 18:38:55 UTC 2015

The primary advantage to making it be a function (also doing it as syntax
would be great too!) is that it's polyfillable, which means that all
browsers could instantly take advantage of known-safe regex escaping.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Alexander Jones <alex at> wrote:

> At risk of bikeshed, I think I would prefer syntax for it, personally,
> e.g.:
>     let myRegExp = /\d+\./{arbitrary.js(expression)}/SOMETHING$/;
> (ASI issues notwithstanding) vaguely matching the idea of template
> strings. I prefer this kind of thing to be structured at the parse-level
> rather than relying on runtime string stitching and hoping for a valid
> parse.
> Cheers
> On Friday, June 12, 2015, Benjamin Gruenaum <benjamingr at> wrote:
>> Reviving this, a year passed and I think we still want this.
>> We have even more validation than we had a year ago (added by libraries
>> like lodash) and this is still useful.
>> What would be the required steps in order to push this forward to the
>> ES2016 spec?
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list