Normative: allow named capture groups in Annex B non-u regex grammar #2729
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
bakkot
added
normative change
jmdyck
reviewed
Apr 12, 2022
syg
approved these changes
Apr 20, 2022
michaelficarra
approved these changes
Apr 20, 2022
bakkot
added
the
ready to merge
bakkot
force-pushed
the
fix-annex-b-named-capturing-groups
branch
from
847430c to
f0c9031
Compare
ljharb
force-pushed
the
fix-annex-b-named-capturing-groups
branch
from
f0c9031 to
918e0e9
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #1673.
Capturing group names were introduced in #1673, in both
uand non-uregexes, but the alternate grammar for regexes in Annex B (i.e., the actual grammar for regexes) replaces in non-uregexes the nonterminal (Atom) which derivesGroupSpecifier, and that PR neglected to update the new nonterminal (ExtendedAtom). This PR corrects that oversight.I've marked this as a normative change rather than editorial because the current spec is, technically, coherent. However, the current spec does not match committee intent or web reality, so in my view we can land this without asking for consensus.