Re: Octal escape sequences in string and regexp literals
Le 4 janv. 2015 à 00:44, Caitlin Potter caitpotte...@gmail.com a écrit : I agree on that point, and therefore I didn't make any refactoring argument. I was referring specifically to C12 (and one other, IIRC) on bug 3477 (For reference, bug 3477 C12 is here: https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3477#c12 ) In that case, I disagree on that point, but I didn't make any refactoring argument. I mean: the two questions I asked in the beginning of the present thread are unrelated to the particular refactoring hazard mentioned in bug 3477 comment 12. —Claude ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Re: Octal escape sequences in string and regexp literals
I agree on that point, and therefore I didn't make any refactoring argument. I was referring specifically to C12 (and one other, IIRC) on bug 3477 ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Re: Octal escape sequences in string and regexp literals
I agree on that point, and therefore I didn't make any refactoring argument. I was referring specifically to C12 (and one other, IIRC) I was referring specifically to C12 (and one other, IIRC) on bug 3477 =)*** ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Octal escape sequences in string and regexp literals
Nevertheless, https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3477#c12 makes a good point. IMHO! /be Caitlin Potter wrote: I agree on that point, and therefore I didn't make any refactoring argument. I was referring specifically to C12 (and one other, IIRC) I was referring specifically to C12 (and one other, IIRC) on bug 3477 =)*** ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Re: Octal escape sequences in string and regexp literals
I think there are a few reasons why you wouldn't want these. First and foremost, octal escapes (\nnn) are just an alternative equivalent to hex escapes (\xnn). Most software developers spend a lot more time dealing with hex when it comes to byte values, and very little time with octal literals outside of things like unix file permissions. The most useful octal literal would be \0, and this is already explicitly permitted in strict mode. So, I don't think there's any real compelling use case for the alternative representation of byte values. So to summarize, supporting these in strict mode would be adding another way to accomplish the same given task (which grows the language for no real reason and with no benefit), does not make string literals easier to read and understand, and does not enable software developers to perform any compelling task which was not more easily accomplished using hex literals. Finally, the most common use-case for this feature is already supported in strict mode. More important, octal escape sequences are a bit liberal, in that they can be of several lengths, with a pretty wide range of delimiters. This, I think, results in many cases where octal escape sequences are used by accident, rather than intentionally. It's a footgun, and ideally that footgun should not be there. I feel like the refactoring pain argument is not very compelling, because I am not convinced beginners are likely to use octal literals on purpose (or even by accident). ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Octal escape sequences in string and regexp literals
Le 2 janv. 2015 à 22:08, Caitlin Potter caitpotte...@gmail.com a écrit : (...) More important, octal escape sequences are a bit liberal, in that they can be of several lengths, with a pretty wide range of delimiters. This, I think, results in many cases where octal escape sequences are used by accident, rather than intentionally. It's a footgun, and ideally that footgun should not be there. Concretely, the danger is that someone could write \07 when they mean \0 + 7. This is a good point. (Were you thinking of other cases when you wrote many cases?) I feel like the refactoring pain argument is not very compelling, because I am not convinced beginners are likely to use octal literals on purpose (or even by accident). I agree on that point, and therefore I didn't make any refactoring argument. —Claude ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
