I think I'm lost. If both behave the same, then why do we need to call some utility function?
-Alex On 7/20/17, 5:00 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Good catch. I was misled by the docs [1]. > >[1] >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhelp.adobe >.com%2Fen_US%2FFlashPlatform%2Freference%2Factionscript%2F3%2FString.html% >23match&data=02%7C01%7C%7C66b63f8228ab4f80a39408d4cf66f9a9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344 >38794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636361488561328745&sdata=CbWB8sk4vOv1vId9aT7 >WkDjQrkqarHU2aAAoWw9UBNA%3D&reserved=0() > >From: Harbs<mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com> >Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 9:40 AM >To: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org> >Subject: Re: [FlexJS] String.match() > >Both Flash and JS engines automatically convert to RegExp. I had not >realized that at first. > >It seems that the only difference between the Flash engine and JS engines >is what happens when constructing a RegExp object from invalid input. >Flash matches nothing, while JS throws an error. > >By just wrapping the call in a try/catch, that seems to resolve the issue. > >I added the trace because I think it’s bad practice to use strings >instead of RegExp because it can lead to unexpected results and a new >RegExp instance needs to be constructed every time. > >> On Jul 20, 2017, at 3:32 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> >>wrote: >> >> It looks like they just trace a warning instead of trying to convert to >>a >> RegExp. Is that what we want to do? Or should we add code that >>converts >> a string to regex? >> >> Thoughts? >> -Alex >> >> On 7/19/17, 4:32 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I added the utility functions. I think they can be very simple. >>> >>>> On Jul 19, 2017, at 9:30 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Unless we are absolutely sure that everybody will need the code >>>> generated >>>> by the compiler, having the compiler call a framework function makes >>>>it >>>> easier for an app developer to make any adjustments to that code. It >>>>is >>>> easier to monkey-patch a utility function than find-and-replace some >>>> sequence of code the compiler has sprinkled throughout the output. >>>> >>>> My 2 cents, >>>> -Alex >>>> >>>> On 7/18/17, 11:36 AM, "yishayw" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Alex Harui-2 wrote >>>>>> By >>>>>> calling new utility functions, the developer has control over the >>>>>> conversion. >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand that point. Do you mean an app developer? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache >>>>>-f >>>>> le >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FFlexJS-String-match-tp63392p6340 >>>>>5. >>>>> ht >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>ml&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ff1088402ef439ca27908d4ce0e97eb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443 >>>>>87 >>>>> 94 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636360009448210304&sdata=nprl9yHUtlsTHbIZxeFq >>>>>2h >>>>> %2 >>>>> FQNWmtimM%2BxAt0kJA8EcA%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at >>>>> Nabble.com. >>>> >>> >> >
