-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bug? re named groups in Annex B #1673
Labels
Comments
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Aug 27, 2019
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Sep 17, 2019
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Dec 13, 2019
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Jan 7, 2020
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Jan 25, 2020
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Feb 5, 2020
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Feb 5, 2020
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Jun 15, 2021
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Jun 23, 2021
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Jul 11, 2021
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Jul 18, 2021
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Jul 24, 2021
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Aug 17, 2021
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Sep 14, 2021
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Sep 24, 2021
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
jmdyck
added a commit
to jmdyck/ecma262
that referenced
this issue
Sep 29, 2021
... by merging the two capturing-group alternatives. (This may be affected by the outcome of issue tc39#1673.)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
In the main body, we have (in part):
Annex B doesn't change that production, but it does restrict its use (in
Term
) to[+U]
. For[~U]
, the corresponding production isThat is, if a web browser (following Annex B) is parsing a regex with
[~U]
, it is supposed to reject named groups.I'm not sure if this is a bug, but it does seem odd to me.
A non-browser is required to accept named groups when parsing with
[~U]
, and I thought Annex B was only supposed to add features, not subtract.The Annex B production for
AtomEscape
allows named backreferences under[~U, +N]
, but what's the point if[~U]
doesn't allow named groups in the first place?This goes back to the introduction of named capture groups in 95ec0c6 (PR #1027).
The final state of the original proposal doesn't mention Annex B, so it's unclear what #1027 was supposed to do re Annex B.
@mathiasbynens and/or @littledan, please comment.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: