This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 19, 2021. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Throw if
searchValue
is a non-global RegExp #24Throw if
searchValue
is a non-global RegExp #24Changes from 2 commits
93b1748
9acb010
e796ca6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it does seem kind of odd that a non RegExp can have any kind of non “all” behavior it wants, but an actual RegExp is forced to have the proper “all” behavior. Not sure anything can be done about that, but it is an inconsistency introduced by this change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see what you're saying. Still, there's value in making built-ins work well / in unsurprising ways by default, even if for userland subclasses, this is up to the user.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we only/mostly care about built-ins, I wonder if makes more sense to move this check into https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-regexp-prototype-matchall?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Interesting. I don't have a strong preference tbh. Any opinions? @schuay @ljharb
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No strong opinion. One argument for the current spot is that the location is consistent between
matchAll
andreplaceAll
. There's no@@replaceAll
so we could not consistently move both checks to a RegExp builtin. I'm fine with either way.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems like the motivation/value of moving it inside the symbol methods is so a subclass could override the behavior - ie, could lack the g flag but still be “all” (vice versa is already going to be possible). I don’t see any benefit in allowing regex subclasses to deviate from this rather strong guard that we’ll have decided on - without concrete use cases, i think here is probably a better spot.