The problem with using the RegExp constructor is that it is never cached by
the engine. As a literal, engines usually internalize them, speeding up
matches very quickly.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015, 14:24 C. Scott Ananian <ecmascr...@cscott.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Brian Terlson
> <brian.terl...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > RegExp.re or similar seems nice:
> >
> > ```
> > let re = RegExp.re("x")`
> > (\d{3}-)? # area code (optional)
> > \d{3}- # prefix
> > \d{4} # line number
> > `;
> > ```
> >
> > But it seems like previous proposals of this want escaping which doesn't
> seem ideal for this purpose. Do we need both `RegExp.re` and
> `RegExp.escapedRe`?
>
> Escaping happens if you use interpolation into the string template:
> ```
> let re = RegExp.re`(?x:
> (\d{3}-)? # area code (optional)
> ${ /\d{3}/ }- # prefix
> \d{4} # line number
> ( ${ "*" } \d+ )? # extension
> )`;
> ```
> If the interpolated expression is a regexp, then things seem
> relatively straightforward (although there are corner cases to
> consider). If the interpolated expression is a string, then it is
> suggested that you use some sort of automatic escaping.
> --scott
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
