lists.apache.org <http://lists.apache.org/> displays it fine: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ec0b951752140ad0cd56319b9629cc4a7e097487fd47c84649ffc352@%3Cdev.flex.apache.org%3E <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ec0b951752140ad0cd56319b9629cc4a7e097487fd47c84649ffc352@%3Cdev.flex.apache.org%3E>
I think you missed my last point. The fact that JS throws an error actually uncovered a bug in my code. When you construct an invalid regex in Flash, you get a RegExp object which will NEVER match anything. It’s a valid RegExp object with an invalid expression. That’s nonsensical. There’s no legitimate reason to use a regex which does nothing. The JS behavior which throws an error makes much more sense, so I’m currently of the opinion that we shouldn’t be fixing this at all. Harbs > On Jul 21, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > My email totally mangled your post. Anyway, if you think you've got code > that is equivalent to Flash's String.match, that's good enough for now. > If folks find issues later we can improve on the utility function. > > If you want to alter the compiler output, see how I handled Array.sortOn > in FunctionCallEmitter.java. I think you can do something similar for > String.match and String.search. > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 7/20/17, 2:28 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com > <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> No. We thought that the “?” found the string in Flash. It does not. >> >> trace("https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww> >> w.google.com >> <http://w.google.com/>%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Ddogs&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce68f4223e52d48e8c03908d >> 4cfb6524c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636361829356324151& >> sdata=voY1pLBiaj2u1GDu0YeKMipu%2FGRHwMWQzRRA0JCTkZc%3D&reserved=0".match(" >> ?")); >> trace("https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww> >> w.google.com >> <http://w.google.com/>%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Ddogs&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce68f4223e52d48e8c03908d >> 4cfb6524c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636361829356324151& >> sdata=voY1pLBiaj2u1GDu0YeKMipu%2FGRHwMWQzRRA0JCTkZc%3D&reserved=0".search( >> "?")); >> trace("https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww> >> w.google.com >> <http://w.google.com/>%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Ddogs&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce68f4223e52d48e8c03908d >> 4cfb6524c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636361829356324151& >> sdata=voY1pLBiaj2u1GDu0YeKMipu%2FGRHwMWQzRRA0JCTkZc%3D&reserved=0".indexOf >> ("?")); >> >> outputs: >> >> null >> -1 >> 29 >> >>> On Jul 21, 2017, at 12:00 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID >>> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I think I'm still confused. My current thinking is that in Flash there >>> are strings you can pass in that are "invalid RegExp" that will still >>> find >>> matches in a string. Isn't that what Yishay showed? IOW, passing in >>> just >>> "?" in Flash will find question marks in a string but is an error in JS >>> because it isn't valid RegExp. >>> >>> So, right now I think the utility function needs to catch the error and >>> either escape the string so it is valid RegExp and call match() or use >>> indexOf() and compute the same result. It should not always return >>> null. >>> Then I think it would completely implement how it worked in Flash and >>> the >>> users won't have to figure out how to regex-ify the strings in the apps >>> they are porting. >>> >>> My 2 cents, >>> -Alex >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/20/17, 12:55 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>> >>>> After all this discussion, I’m having second thoughts about this whole >>>> thing. >>>> >>>> What’s the point of using an invalid RegExp that will not match >>>> anything? >>>> >>>> I think the JS behavior makes more sense than the Flash behavior. If a >>>> RegExp is invalid, it should throw an error rather than never matching >>>> anything. The use of such a RegExp in the first place can only be >>>> described as a bug. >>>> >>>> “Fixing” the JS behavior to match the Flash behavior is the wrong thing >>>> to do. >>>> >>>>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> new RegExp({}) >>>>> returns: >>>>> /[object Object]/ >>>>> >>>>> I think the wrapping that I did in the code I already committed is >>>>> correct: >>>>> >>>>> try{return input.match(pattern);} >>>>> catch (e:Error){return null;} >>>>> >>>>> If the try fails, that means the RegExp is an invalid expression and >>>>> will not match anything in Flash. In that case, match should always >>>>> return null and search should always return -1. >>>>> >>>>> I do think that warning developers against using strings is a good >>>>> idea. Accepting any value and automatically converting it to RegExp >>>>> seems like a poorly conceived idea to me... >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID >>>>>> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> >>>>>> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> >>>>>> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm confused. Doesn't Yishay's example use syntax that Harbs claimed >>>>>> threw an error? >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, I can believe the three steps Harbs listed are correct for JS >>>>>> since step 1 might just happen via implicit type coercion. I suppose >>>>>> someone could test it by seeing if JS handles "new RegExp({})"; >>>>>> >>>>>> But since there are differences between SWF and JS I want to first >>>>>> make >>>>>> sure we have agreement that the goal here is to be backward >>>>>> compatible >>>>>> with SWF if we can. I don't think we should be requiring folks to >>>>>> modify >>>>>> existing passing of strings or getting the compiler to try to modify >>>>>> those >>>>>> strings if we can figure out how to get match() in JS to be >>>>>> equivalent >>>>>> to >>>>>> SWF's match(). >>>>>> >>>>>> So I think Herbs suggested wrapping in try catch like this, correct? >>>>>> >>>>>> public function match(input:String, pattern:*):Array >>>>>> { >>>>>> COMPILE::SWF >>>>>> { >>>>>> return input.match(pattern); >>>>>> } >>>>>> COMPILE::JS >>>>>> { >>>>>> try >>>>>> { >>>>>> return input.match(pattern); >>>>>> } >>>>>> catch (e:Error) >>>>>> { >>>>>> pattern = pattern.toString(); >>>>>> if (input.indexOf(pattern) != -1) >>>>>> return [ pattern ]; // or whatever should be returned >>>>>> return null; >>>>>> } >>>>>> } >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think we should use trace to tell folks not to use String. >>>>>> You >>>>>> are welcome to add it to the ASDoc though. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Alex >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/20/17, 10:52 AM, "yishayw" <yishayj...@hotmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com> >>>>>> <mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com <mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com>> >>>>>> <mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com <mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com> >>>>>> <mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com <mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think there would still be a difference between flash and js >>>>>>> because the >>>>>>> flash implementation (counter to AS3 documentation) always returns >>>>>>> null >>>>>>> when >>>>>>> an invalid regex is passed as a string. So according to your >>>>>>> suggested >>>>>>> implementation for >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Var s: String = "m?o"; >>>>>>> Var a:Array = s.match("?") >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a is null in flash but ["?"] in JS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapach >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapach> >>>>>>> e- >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapac >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapac> >>>>>>> he-> >>>>>>> fle >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapac >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapac> >>>>>>> he >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapac >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapac> >>>>>>> he> >>>>>>> -fle> >>>>>>> x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com >>>>>>> <http://x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/> >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fx-de >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fx-de> >>>>>>> velopment.2333347.n4.nabble.com >>>>>>> <http://velopment.2333347.n4.nabble.com/>%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce68f4223e52d48e8 >>>>>>> c03908d4cfb6524c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363618 >>>>>>> 29356324151&sdata=TG6M8KryM8pQq0jjjBGCjM30i4j8R78tIYwdKo9S9o4%3D&rese >>>>>>> rved=0> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fx-de >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fx-de> >>>>>>> ve >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fx-de >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fx-de> >>>>>>> ve> >>>>>>> lopment.2333347.n4.nabble.com <http://lopment.2333347.n4.nabble.com/> >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flopm >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flopm> >>>>>>> ent.2333347.n4.nabble.com >>>>>>> <http://ent.2333347.n4.nabble.com/>%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce68f4223e52d48e8c03908 >>>>>>> d4cfb6524c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6363618293563 >>>>>>> 24151&sdata=n7GTeuktiyF%2FrxSvm%2BtZqbcZ1RlX6xbLT8PXnFjkMhk%3D&reserv >>>>>>> ed=0>%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6ec68d20c01e4fae6173 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 08d4cfa95280%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63636177351 >>>>>>> 99 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 74472&sdata=UiouHqnKJ4SI1gEcaeu9N5%2FHqGYle%2FKELTCvKRo8c8c%3D&reserv >>>>>>> ed >>>>>>> =0>%2FFlexJS-String-match-tp63392p63467.ht >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ml&data=02%7C01%7C%7C381f79bbe2594b1cab0808d4cf9af1a0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344 >>>>>>> 38 >>>>>>> 794 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636361711762211281&sdata=gA2I9N%2Bq%2F%2FvIL >>>>>>> p7 >>>>>>> C3c >>>>>>> UQHenXZDXmu0lK3PtJ%2FnhetW4%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>> Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at >>>>>>> Nabble.com <http://nabble.com/> >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnabb >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnabb> >>>>>>> le.com >>>>>>> <http://le.com/>%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce68f4223e52d48e8c03908d4cfb6524c%7Cfa7b1b >>>>>>> 5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636361829356324151&sdata=wstsyap >>>>>>> Iw9kn5y22ZFoCDiYuBb%2FGD0h5PX0OEPLHcWU%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnabb >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnabb> >>>>>>> le >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnabb >>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnabb> >>>>>>> le> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> .com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6ec68d20c01e4fae617308d4cfa95280%7Cfa7b1b5a >>>>>>> 7b >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636361773519974472&sdata=1Eu83yHYa6T >>>>>>> aL >>>>>>> rDm0RmuENLfQREVxolgz4%2BbWUgKB9c%3D&reserved=0>.
