| 03:04 | <devsnek> | fwiw its sort of "planned" to have fetch in node, there's just a lot of stuff to do and not a lot of people willing to do it. (jasnell's work on streams, for example) |
| 03:50 | <sideshowbarker> | Can somebody please step in on https://github.com/mdn/content/issues/11743 with a comment to confirm what the argument order is for the replacer function for String.prototype.replace()? |
| 03:51 | <sideshowbarker> | Is it (match, offset, string) or is it instead (match, string, offset)? |
| 03:52 | <sideshowbarker> | see comments at https://github.com/mdn/content/issues/11743#issuecomment-1012831082 and https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/11770#pullrequestreview-845997341 |
| 03:56 | <jmdyck> | looks like neither |
| 03:57 | <sideshowbarker> | oh… |
| 03:57 | <jmdyck> | replacer is called with only 2 arguments: « O, replaceValue » |
| 03:57 | <sideshowbarker> | aha |
| 03:57 | <sideshowbarker> | then I wonder why it doesn’t throw when called when called with 3 arguments… |
| 03:58 | <jmdyck> | extra args are always allowed and ignored. |
| 03:59 | <jmdyck> | no wait, you mean "why doesn't it throw when the actual replacer takes 3 args", right? |
| 03:59 | <sideshowbarker> | yeah |
| 03:59 | <sideshowbarker> | that |
| 03:59 | <jmdyck> | in that case, the 3rd arg should always be undefined |
| 03:59 | <sideshowbarker> | also, at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/String/replace#specifying_a_function_as_a_parameter we have it documented as taking even more than just 3 arguments |
| 04:00 | <jmdyck> | (unless the implementation is doing something special) |
| 04:02 | <jmdyck> | ah, i think misunderstanding re "replacer function" |
| 04:03 | <sideshowbarker> | yeah looking at the spec, I see
|
| 04:04 | <jmdyck> | _replacer_ is the alias that the spec uses for the @@replace method extracted from the first arg to S.p.replace() |
| 04:05 | <jmdyck> | but you're talking about the second arg |
| 04:08 | <jmdyck> | If the second arg is a function, it's called with args « searchString, 𝔽(position), string », which is roughly (needle, offset, haystack) |
| 04:13 | <jmdyck> | The MDN page's description of the second parameter looks non-standard to me. |
| 04:14 | <jmdyck> | (Though maybe all engines support it?) |
| 04:22 | <sideshowbarker> | If the second arg is a function, it's called with args « searchString, 𝔽(position), string », which is roughly (needle, offset, haystack) |
| 04:23 | <sideshowbarker> | The MDN page's description of the second parameter looks non-standard to me. |
| 04:57 | <sideshowbarker> | which part of the spec defines operator precedence? |
| 04:57 | <sideshowbarker> | looking for a reference to cite in https://github.com/mdn/content/issues/11926 |
| 04:58 | <jmdyck> | Operator precedence is implicit in the grammar. |
| 05:00 | <sideshowbarker> | OK, but the statement “Precedence of 'Postfix Increment/Decrement' is higher than 'Function Call'” is not correct, right? |
| 05:07 | <jmdyck> | right (given reasonable definitions) |
| 05:14 | <jmdyck> | It's unclear why the submitter thinks that the observed behavior implies "Precedence of 'Postfix Increment/Decrement' is higher than 'Function Call'" |
| 05:20 | <jmdyck> | for a postfix op to have a higher precedence than operator OP, you expect X OP Y ++ to mean X OP (Y++) rather than (X OP Y)++, but the first option doesn't really make sense when OP is function-call. |
| 11:54 | <Ashley Claymore> | looking for a reference to cite in https://github.com/mdn/content/issues/11926 |
| 12:01 | <Ashley Claymore> | (f())++ would be a ReferenceError, but ((0, f())++ is a SyntaxError |