On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:36 AM Jason Orendorff <jason.orendo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The second approach, hands down.
>
> 1. With the first approach, you're setting up a situation where it's very
> easy to write buggy analysis code: if you forget to check `re.quantifier`
> anywhere, your code will run, but you have a bug. Much easier to only have
> to check `re.type`.
>
> 2. If you have a regexp `re` and you want to programmatically build a
> regexp that matches one or more repetitions of it, it's much easier to
> write `{type: '+', expression: re}` than to have to examine `re.quantifier`
> and (if it's already present) figure out how to modify it.
>
> 3. With the first approach, you don't have to represent `(?:)` group in
> the AST at all (rather like how Esprima drops redundant parentheses). With
> the latter, I think you have to, because it's possible for a single regexp
> "node" to have multiple quantifiers: `/(?:\d{4,6})?/`
>
> To me this is not even a question.
>
Jason, thanks; all good points! And I came to similar conclusions while was
experimenting. Wanted to double-check, thanks for confirming.
Dmitry
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
