" that does not find a thing, that find an index" I meant that simply store once the index without needing an outer scope access and variable inside the closure
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < [email protected]> wrote: > I use RegExp.$1 , RegExp.$2, etc quite a lot since I am a huge fan of the > RAM and I believe creating a redundant array of matches for no reason since > these are retrievable in any case through the RegExp constructor, > considering exec and match points to those RegExp properties anyhow, ain't > needed when re.test(value) is involved. > > If re.test(value) RegExp.$1; > > As easy as that: 1) is *not* a bad practice and 2) is less redundant than > if (re.test(value)) match = re.exec(value)[1]; > > I might agree about the ugly ness, the fact MDN is lacking those > properties I believe defined in the specs does not mean those properties > are bad (as I have just explained) > > Also, that does not find a thing, that find an index ... and I forgot the > +RegExp['$&'] plus sign to have the integer. > > We are programmers, we find solutions/alternatives/optimizations ... right? > > br > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Jeff Walden <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 03/03/2013 06:53 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: >> > I had to check msdn rather than MDN since latter does not mention it >> while mans shows an example: >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/3k9c4a32(v=vs.94).aspx >> >> The RegExp statics aren't mentioned because they're a bad idea, imposing >> costs of some sort on pretty much all regular expression uses. Don't use >> them! >> >> And, um, this is quite possibly the most awful way to find a value in an >> array that I've ever seen. Even setting aside the statics usage! >> >> Jeff >> > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
