Thanks! I wasn't able to glean that from the spec. It is admittedly
confusing and not very obvious, but I was just curious.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016, 16:41 Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Le 3 juin 2016 à 10:20, Isiah Meadows <isiahmead...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > These three RegExps don't appear valid, even after reading the Annex B,
> but they do behave consistently in both Chrome and Firefox. They are listed
> here with equivalent regexps:
> >
> > - `/[[]/` -> `/\[\[\]/`
> > - `/[]]/` -> `/(?!)/` (i.e. nothing)
> > - `/a{,,/` -> `/a\{,,+/`
> >
> > Is this a spec bug or an implementation bug in the parsing?
>
> The first pattern is conform to the syntax and semantics given in the main
> part of the spec. The most relevant rule in the grammar of
> https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-regular-expressions-patterns is:
>
> ClassAtomNoDash ::
> SourceCharacter but not one of \ or ] or -
>
> In particular an unescaped `[` is an acceptable atom inside a character
> class.
>
> The last two ones are well specified by main part modified with annex b.
> The second pattern starts with an empty class, which is a valid way to not
> match anything. And the most relevant rule in Annex B grammar in
> https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-regular-expressions-patterns is:
>
> ExtendedPatternCharacter::
> SourceCharacter but not one of ^ $ . * + ? ( ) [ |
>
> In particular, `]` and `{` may appear unescaped outside character class
> (with the restriction that `{` is not at the start of a sequence that
> resemble a quantifier, which case is taken care by the
> `InvalidBracedQuantifier` production).
>
> —Claude
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
