After all this discussion, I’m having second thoughts about this whole thing.
What’s the point of using an invalid RegExp that will not match anything?
I think the JS behavior makes more sense than the Flash behavior. If a RegExp
is invalid, it should throw an error rather than never matching anything. The
use of such a RegExp in the first place can only be described as a bug.
“Fixing” the JS behavior to match the Flash behavior is the wrong thing to do.
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> new RegExp({})
> returns:
> /[object Object]/
>
> I think the wrapping that I did in the code I already committed is correct:
>
> try{return input.match(pattern);}
> catch (e:Error){return null;}
>
> If the try fails, that means the RegExp is an invalid expression and will not
> match anything in Flash. In that case, match should always return null and
> search should always return -1.
>
> I do think that warning developers against using strings is a good idea.
> Accepting any value and automatically converting it to RegExp seems like a
> poorly conceived idea to me...
>
>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 9:48 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID
>> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm confused. Doesn't Yishay's example use syntax that Harbs claimed
>> threw an error?
>>
>> Anyway, I can believe the three steps Harbs listed are correct for JS
>> since step 1 might just happen via implicit type coercion. I suppose
>> someone could test it by seeing if JS handles "new RegExp({})";
>>
>> But since there are differences between SWF and JS I want to first make
>> sure we have agreement that the goal here is to be backward compatible
>> with SWF if we can. I don't think we should be requiring folks to modify
>> existing passing of strings or getting the compiler to try to modify those
>> strings if we can figure out how to get match() in JS to be equivalent to
>> SWF's match().
>>
>> So I think Herbs suggested wrapping in try catch like this, correct?
>>
>> public function match(input:String, pattern:*):Array
>> {
>> COMPILE::SWF
>> {
>> return input.match(pattern);
>> }
>> COMPILE::JS
>> {
>> try
>> {
>> return input.match(pattern);
>> }
>> catch (e:Error)
>> {
>> pattern = pattern.toString();
>> if (input.indexOf(pattern) != -1)
>> return [ pattern ]; // or whatever should be returned
>> return null;
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> I don't think we should use trace to tell folks not to use String. You
>> are welcome to add it to the ASDoc though.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>> On 7/20/17, 10:52 AM, "yishayw" <yishayj...@hotmail.com
>> <mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think there would still be a difference between flash and js because the
>>> flash implementation (counter to AS3 documentation) always returns null
>>> when
>>> an invalid regex is passed as a string. So according to your suggested
>>> implementation for
>>>
>>> Var s: String = "m?o";
>>> Var a:Array = s.match("?")
>>>
>>> a is null in flash but ["?"] in JS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle>
>>> x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com
>>> <http://x-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/>%2FFlexJS-String-match-tp63392p63467.ht
>>> ml&data=02%7C01%7C%7C381f79bbe2594b1cab0808d4cf9af1a0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794
>>> aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636361711762211281&sdata=gA2I9N%2Bq%2F%2FvILp7C3c
>>> UQHenXZDXmu0lK3PtJ%2FnhetW4%3D&reserved=0
>>> Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com
>>> <http://nabble.com/>.
>
