On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ES6 template string already solve the problem that this thread states, > without changing replace: http://gul.ly/149g > Sorry, I should've just included this in-line: var func = function() { var y = [ 52, '$']; return null; }; var data = func.toString(); var x = `This is a simple ${data}`; console.log(x); Result: This is a simple function () { var y = [52, '$']; return null; } > > Rick > > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Alex Kit <alex....@atmajs.com> wrote: > >> Would be nice to use something similar that mozilla now does: replace(string, >> mix, ?flags) >> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/String/replace>, >> but so that flags are also applied for strings. It wont break nothing as >> when (string, string) is used, then usual behaviour is applied, but with >> flags the behaviour is extendible, it would be possible then: >> >> // replace global'foo x foo'.replace('foo', 'baz', 'g') //> 'baz x baz' >> // global and case insensitive'Foo x foo'.replace('foo', 'baz', 'gi') //> >> 'baz x baz' >> // and now the subject, e.g. `r`(raw) flag'foo bar`'.replace('foo', '$`', >> 'rg') //> '$` bar`' >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> From: f.bagna...@gmail.com >> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:00:22 -0700 >> Subject: Re: String.prototype.replace() problems with JSON.stringify() >> and serialization of Objects >> To: waldron.r...@gmail.com >> CC: es-discuss@mozilla.org >> >> >> Of course it's a hack :-) >> >> So, moving forward, it'd have to be an extra method on strings, that only >> provides a small change in behavior. It's probably not going to happen >> because it's such a small change. >> >> Potentially a S.p.replaceAll which has the same behavior as split-join in >> that: "a b a c a d".replaceAll("a", "X") => "X b X c X d". >> >> But then you end up with similar concerns to those expressed in the >> current .contains thread (it's inconsistent). >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Christoph Martens <cmarten...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >> On 28.07.2014 17:24, Rick Waldron wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: >> >> On 7/28/14, 11:09 AM, Rick Waldron wrote: >> >> var y = x.replace('{{blob}}', function() { >> return data; >> }); >> >> >> In fairness, that's the sort of thing that gives off a "WAT smell". Code >> like this without a comment that explains the indirection is just asking >> someone to "simplify" it, breaking it in the process... >> >> >> I don't disagree with your feedback, but JS has had special semantics >> for "$" (with ’ or n) character in the replaceValue since ES3 (just short >> of 15 years). I didn't say that the solution was obvious, just that it >> required familiarity ;) >> >> Rick >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing >> listes-discuss@mozilla.orghttps://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> Hey Rick, >> >> To be honest, I didn't know the trick with the dummy filter function >> returning the plain data. I expected that it was executed each time a match >> was found (similar to Array filter functions). >> >> I think for external guys writing JavaScript, the WAT effect is pretty >> huge. Either we should change the behaviour of the parameters (which is bad >> for legacy implementations) >> >> >> The progress of JS is limited only to non-web-breaking changes. >> >> >> Rick >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
