d at domenic.me (2015-10-12T20:39:39.897Z)
On 10/09/2015 15:07, Nozomu Katō wrote: > As Jason Orendorff wrote before, the lookbehind supported by .NET is a > strict superset of what I have proposed. So, if you or someone else > submits another lookbehind proposal based on .NET and it supersedes my > proposal in a later version of ECMAScript, from the point of view of > users, that would look like just an enhancement. It's not a superset. Captures would match differently.
On 10/09/2015 15:07, Nozomu Katō wrote: > Since there was a comment about Perl5 style vs .NET style when I first > posted my proposal to es-discuss, I just wanted to explain about the > background of my proposal. I proposed Perl5 compatible lookbehinds > because I thought it was relatively simple to implement. Moreover, I am > not confident that I can write a lookbehind proposal based on .NET > implementation, in the manner used in the ECMAScript specification. > > As Jason Orendorff wrote before, the lookbehind supported by .NET is a > strict superset of what I have proposed. So, if you or someone else > submits another lookbehind proposal based on .NET and it supersedes my > proposal in a later version of ECMAScript, from the point of view of > users, that would look like just an enhancement. It's not a superset. Captures would match differently. Waldemar