Re: Backward running version look-behinds

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:56:56 -0800, Waldemar Horwat wrote: > On 12/11/2015 13:16, Nozomu Katō wrote: >> I wonder if the person who wrote the spec for RegExp is on this list. I >> would like to ask one question: Was there any reason why the following >> steps were defined in the present order: >>

Re: Backward running version look-behinds

On 12/11/2015 13:16, Nozomu Katō wrote: I wonder if the person who wrote the spec for RegExp is on this list. I would like to ask one question: Was there any reason why the following steps were defined in the present order: 21.2.2.4 Alternative The production Alternative :: Alternative Term

Re: Re: Backward running version look-behinds

Can we move this to stage 2? - We have a spec draft: claudepache.github.io/ecma262/#sec-pattern, claudepache.github.io/ecma262/#sec-pattern - We have champions: Gorkem Yakin, Nozomu Katō and Brian Terlson - I'm pretty sure this is going to be part of the standard according to the last TC39

RE: Re: Backward running version look-behinds

From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Yang Guo > - We have a spec draft: http://claudepache.github.io/ecma262/#sec-pattern, > http://claudepache.github.io/ecma262/#sec-pattern > - We have champions: Gorkem Yakin, Nozomu Katō and Brian Terlson Hmm, but none of the

Re: Backward running version look-behinds

I wonder if the person who wrote the spec for RegExp is on this list. I would like to ask one question: Was there any reason why the following steps were defined in the present order: 21.2.2.4 Alternative The production Alternative :: Alternative Term evaluates as follows: 1. Evaluate

RE: Re: Backward running version look-behinds

-l.html -Original Message- From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Domenic Denicola Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 8:42 AM To: Yang Guo <yang...@chromium.org>; es-discuss@mozilla.org Subject: RE: Re: Backward running version look-behinds From: es-d

Re: Re: Backward running version look-behinds

riginal Message- > From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of > Domenic Denicola > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 8:42 AM > To: Yang Guo <yang...@chromium.org>; es-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: RE: Re: Backward running version look-behinds > >

Re: Backward running version look-behinds

That is one of my ongoing works. I have been studying such an unambiguous spec as: 1) backreference numbers are always assigned to capturing parentheses left-to-right, even in lookbehinds. For example, /(?<=((.)(.))(.))./.exec("abcdef") returns ["d", "ab", "a", "b", "c"]. 2) A

Re: Backward running version look-behinds

I am glad to see a spec for .NET-style look-behinds. I am hoping it is considered by those who are familiar with the ECMAScript specification. As a third option, introducing \K being available in recent versions of Perl might be worth considering. This expression excludes what the preceding

Re: Backward running version look-behinds

This is great stuff, thanks for doing this. I couldn't see any bugs in it, though I must admit that 21.2.2.4 part 4 made my head hurt, so I skipped it. Just to prove I actually read it, I'll point out that independant is spelled independent, On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Claude Pache

Re: Backward running version look-behinds

Thank you for telling us that news. Until any proposal (Claude's, mine, or anyone else's) for look-behind assertions reaches Stage 4, I leave my proposal at that URL. Nozomu On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 08:58:13 +, Gorkem Yakin wrote: > Lookbehind assertions were discussed at the TC39 meeting last

RE: Backward running version look-behinds

com> Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org> Subject: Re: Backward running version look-behinds I can speak only for myself. I like the .Net-style lookbehinds, and I hope they will be part of the standard. For something to be in the standard we need both implementations and someone

Re: Backward running version look-behinds

> Le 20 nov. 2015 à 15:41, Nozomu Katō a écrit : > > I was expecting that ES6 would come with look-behinds, because a > proposal had been put at: > http://web.archive.org/web/20121114071428/http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proposals > > However, ES6 does

Re: Backward running version look-behinds

I can speak only for myself. I like the .Net-style lookbehinds, and I hope they will be part of the standard. For something to be in the standard we need both implementations and someone to describe the desired behaviour in the standards document. It looks like implementations are being found.

Re: Backward running version look-behinds

I was expecting that ES6 would come with look-behinds, because a proposal had been put at: http://web.archive.org/web/20121114071428/http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proposals However, ES6 does not support them. I noticed that the link to the proposal had been struck-through:

Re: Backward running version look-behinds (Re: Look-behind proposal in trouble)

> Le 19 nov. 2015 à 20:17, Nozomu Katō a écrit : > > On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 09:04:41 +0100, Yang Guo wrote: >> This implementation supports variable length lookbehind similar to .NET's >> semantics. It does so by emitting code to read backwards inside the >> lookbehind. The

Re: Re: Backward running version look-behinds (Re: Look-behind proposal in trouble)

FWIW this is precisely how it works in .NET as well (reverse order of capture and back reference). While it might be surprising, it makes sense with the backward read direction in mind. I'm not fond of the idea of throwing syntax error if the back reference is to the right of the capture inside a