ArkRegex: A drop in replacement for new RegExp() with types
1–7 of 7 posts
Re: ArkRegex: A drop in replacement for new RegExp() with types
#2Sure, now make it work without having to type "\\w"
Re: ArkRegex: A drop in replacement for new RegExp() with types
#3Sure, now make it work without having to type "\\w"
[deleted]
Re: ArkRegex: A drop in replacement for new RegExp() with types
#4Sure, now make it work without having to type "\\w"
Yes, there are limits on what string literals can precisely represent, but we've tried to be pragmatic about trade offs around clarity, concision and performance.
Subexpressions like `\\w` or `[a-Z]` would just be inferred as `${string}`, but that doesn't mean the inference won't be useful. For example:
expression: regex("^\\w+@\\w+\\.\\w+$") type: Regex
Re: ArkRegex: A drop in replacement for new RegExp() with types
#5Sure, now make it work without having to type "\\w"
Yes, there are limits on what string literals can precisely represent, but we've tried to be pragmatic about trade offs around clarity, concision and performance. Subexpressions like `\\w` or `[a-Z]` would just be inferred as `${string}`, but that doesn't mean the inference won't be useful. For example: expression: regex("^\\w+@\\w+\\.\\w+$") type: Regex
Can't you use tagged literals to do something similar?
Re: ArkRegex: A drop in replacement for new RegExp() with types
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there are limits on what string literals can precisely represent, but we've tried to be pragmatic about trade offs around clarity, concision and performance. Subexpressions like `\\w` or `[a-Z]` would just be inferred as `${string}`, but that doesn't mean the inference won't be useful. For example: expression: regex("^\\w+@\\w+\\.\\w+$") type: Regex
Can't you use tagged literals to do something similar?
Not sure exactly what you mean by "something similar".