I just took a closer look at the ASDoc [1] and Mozilla doc [2].
Both imply that they take more than one type of input, so any utility
function probably should as well and thus be of type "*".
One difference in the two docs that stands out to me is in [1] where it
says:
"If the pattern is not a regular expression or a string, then the method
converts it to a string before executing."
But [2] says:
"If a non-RegExp object obj is passed, it is implicitly converted to a
RegExp by using new RegExp(obj)"
So, assuming this is true, then yes, we need a utility function to wrap
and hide the differences. I would think we want to be backward compatible
with AS in order to ease migration effort, so I think it would look
something like:
public function match(input:String, pattern:*):Array
{
COMPILE::SWF
{
return input.match(pattern);
}
COMPILE::JS
{
if (pattern is RegExp)
return input.match(pattern);
else
{
pattern = pattern.toString();
if (input.indexOf(pattern) != -1)
return [ pattern ];
return null;
}
}
}
Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex
[1]
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/String.h
tml#match()
[2]
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Ob
jects/String/match
On 7/20/17, 9:58 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Really simply:
>new RegExp(“?”)
>
>In Flash, that will produce a RegExp object which matches nothing.
>
>In JS, it throws an error that the RegExp is not valid.
>
>match and search seem to call the RegExp constructor under the hood. In
>Flash it succeeds. In JS it throws an error.
>
>Utility functions serve two purposes:
>
>1. It prevents the error from being thrown.
>2. It warns the developer to not pass in a string as it’s converted to a
>RegExp anyway and is less predictable.
>
>An alternate (possibly better) way to handle this would be to have the
>compiler issue a warning.
>
>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:05 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>> I think I'm lost. If both behave the same, then why do we need to call
>> some utility function?
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 7/20/17, 5:00 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Good catch. I was misled by the docs [1].
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhelp.ado
>>>be
>>>
>>>.com%2Fen_US%2FFlashPlatform%2Freference%2Factionscript%2F3%2FString.htm
>>>l%
>>>
>>>23match&data=02%7C01%7C%7C66b63f8228ab4f80a39408d4cf66f9a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3
>>>44
>>>
>>>38794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636361488561328745&sdata=CbWB8sk4vOv1vId9a
>>>T7
>>> WkDjQrkqarHU2aAAoWw9UBNA%3D&reserved=0()
>>>
>>> From: Harbs<mailto:[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 9:40 AM
>>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>>> Subject: Re: [FlexJS] String.match()
>>>
>>> Both Flash and JS engines automatically convert to RegExp. I had not
>>> realized that at first.
>>>
>>> It seems that the only difference between the Flash engine and JS
>>>engines
>>> is what happens when constructing a RegExp object from invalid input.
>>> Flash matches nothing, while JS throws an error.
>>>
>>> By just wrapping the call in a try/catch, that seems to resolve the
>>>issue.
>>>
>>> I added the trace because I think it’s bad practice to use strings
>>> instead of RegExp because it can lead to unexpected results and a new
>>> RegExp instance needs to be constructed every time.
>>>
>>>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 3:32 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It looks like they just trace a warning instead of trying to convert
>>>>to
>>>> a
>>>> RegExp. Is that what we want to do? Or should we add code that
>>>> converts
>>>> a string to regex?
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> -Alex
>>>>
>>>> On 7/19/17, 4:32 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I added the utility functions. I think they can be very simple.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 19, 2017, at 9:30 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless we are absolutely sure that everybody will need the code
>>>>>> generated
>>>>>> by the compiler, having the compiler call a framework function makes
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> easier for an app developer to make any adjustments to that code.
>>>>>>It
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> easier to monkey-patch a utility function than find-and-replace some
>>>>>> sequence of code the compiler has sprinkled throughout the output.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My 2 cents,
>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/18/17, 11:36 AM, "yishayw" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex Harui-2 wrote
>>>>>>>> By
>>>>>>>> calling new utility functions, the developer has control over the
>>>>>>>> conversion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't understand that point. Do you mean an app developer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapac
>>>>>>>he
>>>>>>> -f
>>>>>>> le
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FFlexJS-String-match-tp63392p63
>>>>>>>40
>>>>>>> 5.
>>>>>>> ht
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ml&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ff1088402ef439ca27908d4ce0e97eb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34
>>>>>>>43
>>>>>>> 87
>>>>>>> 94
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636360009448210304&sdata=nprl9yHUtlsTHbIZxe
>>>>>>>Fq
>>>>>>> 2h
>>>>>>> %2
>>>>>>> FQNWmtimM%2BxAt0kJA8EcA%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>> Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at
>>>>>>> Nabble.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
