Skip to content
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

Closed
jmdyck opened this issue Aug 20, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #2729
Closed

bug? re named groups in Annex B #1673

jmdyck opened this issue Aug 20, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #2729
Labels

Comments

@jmdyck
Copy link
Collaborator

jmdyck commented Aug 20, 2019

In the main body, we have (in part):

Atom[U, N] :: ( GroupSpecifier[?U] Disjunction[?U, ?N] )

Annex B doesn't change that production, but it does restrict its use (in Term) to [+U]. For [~U], the corresponding production is

ExtendedAtom[N] :: ( Disjunction[~U, ?N] )

That 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.

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 jmdyck added the spec bug label Feb 9, 2021
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
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant