Re: Backward running version look-behinds

I am glad to see a spec for .NET-style look-behinds. I am hoping it is considered by those who are familiar with the ECMAScript specification. As a third option, introducing \K being available in recent versions of Perl might be worth considering. This expression excludes what the preceding

Rename RequireObjectCoercible in some contexts?

I realize that this is nit-picky, but the name `RequireObjectCoercible` feels wrong (and not intention-revealing) in the following context (which is not about objects at all): 1. Let O be ? RequireObjectCoercible(`this` value). 2. Let S be ? ToString(O). Something like `RequireActualValue` or

Re: Backward running version look-behinds

This is great stuff, thanks for doing this. I couldn't see any bugs in it, though I must admit that 21.2.2.4 part 4 made my head hurt, so I skipped it. Just to prove I actually read it, I'll point out that independant is spelled independent, On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Claude Pache

Re: Backward running version look-behinds

Thank you for telling us that news. Until any proposal (Claude's, mine, or anyone else's) for look-behind assertions reaches Stage 4, I leave my proposal at that URL. Nozomu On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 08:58:13 +, Gorkem Yakin wrote: > Lookbehind assertions were discussed at the TC39 meeting last

RE: Backward running version look-behinds

Lookbehind assertions were discussed at the TC39 meeting last week and the committee is in favor of the .NET-style version. Gorkem From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Erik Corry Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 11:22 AM To: Nozomu Katō