> Heh. :-) I've posted half of a response at > http://blog.stevenlevithan.com/archives/fixing-javascript-regexp , 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.) Andy _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
