javascript - What ECMAScript implementations extend the RegExp syntax? - Stack Overflow

admin管理员组

文章数量:1279009

So I know in JavaScript an implementation is allowed to extend the regular expressions grammar:

An implementation may extend the ECMAScript Regular Expression grammar defined in 21.2.1, but it must not extend the RegularExpressionBody and RegularExpressionFlags productions defined below or the productions used by these productions.

Was this ability ever used? Do any existing JavaScript implementations extend the regular expressions grammar?

So I know in JavaScript an implementation is allowed to extend the regular expressions grammar:

An implementation may extend the ECMAScript Regular Expression grammar defined in 21.2.1, but it must not extend the RegularExpressionBody and RegularExpressionFlags productions defined below or the productions used by these productions.

Was this ability ever used? Do any existing JavaScript implementations extend the regular expressions grammar?

• javascript
• regex

Share Improve this question Follow asked Jun 20, 2015 at 19:56 Benjamin GruenbaumBenjamin Gruenbaum 277k8989 gold badges518518 silver badges514514 bronze badges 4

• 1 Looking for concrete examples of current extensions What else do you want to know on top of whatever already mentioned in the existing answers? – nhahtdh Commented Jun 30, 2015 at 10:54
• 1 @nhahtdh what I'm asking: Whether implementations actually take advantage of this feature and how (current answers speak of old versions doing this). What I want to know: If we can safely drop this allowance from the ECMAScript specification now that we have subclassable RegExp. – Benjamin Gruenbaum Commented Jun 30, 2015 at 11:08
• 1 I think you might want to clarify that with an edit to your question. Also I'm not sure what you are asking when you say If we can safely drop this allowance from the ECMAScript specification now that we have subclassable RegExp. The clause allows for browser implementation to extend the grammar of RegExp (not just by script) and limits such implementation so that it won't cause a confusion with ment syntax, so I guess it should not be dropped. – nhahtdh Commented Jun 30, 2015 at 11:22
• 1 @nhahtdh Yes, I realize that browsers currently can do this, but if non actually do this we can drop this allowance in a future version of the ECMASCript spec which would make our lives a lot easier :D – Benjamin Gruenbaum Commented Jun 30, 2015 at 11:23

Add a ment  | 

2 Answers 2

Sorted by: Reset to default 9

Yes, Mozilla's Gecko engine did support the sticky y flag, which was not part of ES5. It did eventually became part of ES6.

This ability may be utilised again when engines start implementing look-behind (I hope they start experimenting before it will get specced).

_{This is not an exhaustive list, just what first came to my mind. There may be other examples.}

Octal escape sequence in RegExp

A wide application of that clause (which also presents in ECMAScript 5.1 specification Section 7.8.5) is to provide octal escape sequence to RegExp constructor.

/a\1b/.test("a\u0001b");
/a\11b/.test("a\tb");

The default grammar of RegExp (as described in Section 15.10.1 of ES5.1, or Section 21.2.1 of ES6) doesn't support octal escape sequence, and any decimal escape sequence whose value larger than the number of capturing groups triggers SyntaxError. However, many browsers (even old versions) extends the RegExp grammar to support octal escape sequence and evaluates the 2 lines of code above to true.

Starting from ES6, Annex B, which used to be an informative annex in ES3 to ES5.1 specs, is turned into a normative annex, which requires web browsers to support octal escape sequence for patibility reasons (non-web-browser hosts can choose to stick to the default implementation).

While previous versions of ECMAScript did address support for octal escape sequence, it was only for Numeric and String literals. Backward-patible RegExp is describes for the first time in Section B.1.4 of ES6, which changes the semantics and syntax of RegExp for BMP patterns to include support for octal escape sequence, among other features.

Unmatched closing brackets ] and non-range-quantifier with {}

Another mon extension (as tested on Firefox 38, Chrome 43 and IE9) is to relax the grammar to allow unmatched closing brackets ] and sequences that don't constitute a numbered quantifier and interpret them as literal strings.

/^][[]]$/.test("][]"); // Tokens: ^  ]  [[]  ]  $
/^{56, 67}$/.test("{56, 67}"); // Extra space

Similar to octal escape sequence, the default grammar of RegExp (section 15.10.1 of ES5.1, or section 21.2.1 of ES6) doesn't allow {, }, ] to be an Atom, as those character are excluded from the production of PatternCharacter.

The grammar in Annex B section B.1.4 of ES6 is also extended to interpret non-range-quantifier sequences (sequences which don't match the grammar of QuantifierPrefix) as literal string, via Atom[U] :: PatternCharacter production.

However, the extended grammar doesn't allow unmatched closing ], as both PatternCharacter and PatternCharacterNoBrace production still disallow ].

本文标签： javascriptWhat ECMAScript implementations extend the RegExp syntaxStack Overflow