Give ECMA 262 reference section for RegExp dialect. #775
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Relequestual
approved these changes
Aug 15, 2019
This was referenced Aug 16, 2019
gregsdennis
added
clarification
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #774 . Note that I found a better reference, section 15.10.1, than I mentioned in the quote in the issue.
This does not change any behavior, it just ensures that no one thinks we meant the RegExp literal syntax. Something resembling a RegExp grammar is given in three different places (the RegExp literal section, the actual normative pattern definition in 15.10.1, and an informative definition in A.7), so it's a little confusing to the casual spec reader without a section reference.