Oddly accepted RegExps
a.d.bergi at web.de
Fri Jun 3 13:12:55 UTC 2016
Jeremy Darling wrote:
> /]/ This one throws me, that should require the first ] to be escaped
> (\]) to be useful. I can see it parse and accept but have no clue why or
> what it would do. It should throw an error.
I can't see it accept anything. Afaics, it's equivalent to /\]/ -
which contains an empty class that never matches anything, which is
followed by a literal "]".
More information about the es-discuss