actually it looks to be like a better place to put it is:
ClassEscape[U] :: [+U] -
allen
On Jan 19, 2015, at 9:45 PM, Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
> I think the change proposed by Allen is fine. The main point of the new
> definition of IdentityEscape is to reserve \p, \X, and other escape seque
I think the change proposed by Allen is fine. The main point of the new
definition of IdentityEscape is to reserve \p, \X, and other escape sequences
involving ASCII letters, to which we may want to assign different
interpretations in the future. Allowing \- does not conflict with this.
Norbert
> On 13 Jan 2015, at 22:23, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
> Would those of you who consider yourselves RegExp experts take a look at
> https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3519 Is this a bug? If so, what
> is the fix?
>
> This construction for Identity Escape goes back to Norbert's origi
I think it s a bug, and I think your proposal is appropriate.
From: al...@wirfs-brock.com
Subject: escaping - in /u RegExp
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:23:54 -0800
To: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Would those of you who consider yourselves RegExp experts take a look at
https://bugs.ecmascript.org
Would those of you who consider yourselves RegExp experts take a look at
https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3519 Is this a bug? If so, what is
the fix?
This construction for Identity Escape goes back to Norbert's original proposal
http://norbertlindenberg.com/2012/05/ecmascript-supple
5 matches
Mail list logo
