Prepare me for presenting this to TC39

[domenic]

I'd like a list of what should be presented to TC39. Maybe even a quick slid.es deck or something. Here's my initial set of questions that I have:

• What issues need TC39's input, and could feasibly be decided in a final manner at the meeting? Versus, which are still open for general discussion?
• Is the API final, or is it going to grow some second parameter?
• What stage do you think is appropriate to ask for? 0, 1, or maybe 2?
• Please do Create a table of every escaped character and "why" #31

[benjamingr]

I'll make a deck. When do you need this by? If this could wait a few more days until the discussion at #29 has exhausted itself that'd be better but I can make one now.

Basically I'd like us to present 3 alternatives to the TC:

• A minimalist escaped set producing readable input.
• An extended (and safe) escaped set.
• An extended (but less so) escaped set with a second RegExp parameter for escaping additional characters.

I'll make a list of pros and cons and use cases for each and a specification draft for each. In addition I'd like the TC to consider #27

I don't understand the stages as well as you but I think that if the TC can decide on which alternative we go forward with - there are no remaining action items.

Would making a list of people with domain knowledge who've read through this proposal and LGTM'd and commented be interesting?

[domenic]

I'll make a deck. When do you need this by? If this could wait a few more days until the discussion at #29 has exhausted itself that'd be better but I can make one now.

There's plenty of time; a week before the meeting (July 28) would be fine.

Basically I'd like us to present 3 alternatives to the TC:

That sounds pretty good.

I don't understand the stages as well as you but I think that if the TC can decide on which alternative we go forward with - there are no remaining action items.

Besides deciding between the 3 alternatives, you mean?

Would making a list of people with domain knowledge who've read through this proposal and LGTM'd and commented be interesting?

Yeah, I guess, although appeal to authority is meh---their comments would be the more interesting part.

[benjamingr]

Besides deciding between the 3 alternatives, you mean?

Yes, if the TC can decides on which alternative we go with, and on allowing
implementations to expand the escape set there will be no more remaining
action items.

I agree about appeal to authority.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Domenic Denicola [email protected]
wrote:

I'll make a deck. When do you need this by? If this could wait a few more
days until the discussion at #29
#29 has exhausted
itself that'd be better but I can make one now.

There's plenty of time; a week before the meeting (July 28) would be fine.

Basically I'd like us to present 3 alternatives to the TC:

That sounds pretty good.

I don't understand the stages as well as you but I think that if the TC
can decide on which alternative we go forward with - there are no remaining
action items.

Besides deciding between the 3 alternatives, you mean?

Would making a list of people with domain knowledge who've read through
this proposal and LGTM'd and commented be interesting?

Yeah, I guess, although appeal to authority is meh---their comments would
be the more interesting part.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#32 (comment)
.

[benjamingr]

I tried to keep it short @domenic http://slides.com/benjamingruenbaum/regexp-escape/live what do you think?

[bergus]

Minor quibble: "Also escapes whitespace and /s so eval can be used on a RegExp." should read "Also escapes whitespaces and /s so eval can be used on a RegExp.escaped string.". As we figured out, eval being usable on a RegExp object relies on proper toString behaviour.

[benjamingr]

As we figured out, eval being usable on a RegExp object relies on proper toString behaviour.

Why?

By the way, I wanted to credit you in "people involved" but I don't actually know your full name :v

[bergus]

You had figured this out yourself in #30 :-) eval(new RegExp(RegExp.escape(…))) does work out of the box (because .toString() does the escaping of slashes and whitespace), the only concern was about eval("/"+RegExp.escape(…)+"/") for the "extended safe proposal" (plus readability of whitespaces might be better if not broken into multiple lines in debugging and logs).

[domenic]

@benjamingr looks pretty good. Is there any way I can get edit access? I just want to fix a couple typos and rearrange a couple slides.

[benjamingr]

Sure, I'll get home and invite you to edit

On Jul 28, 2015, at 21:52, Domenic Denicola [email protected] wrote:

@benjamingr looks pretty good. Is there any way I can get edit access? I just want to fix a couple typos and rearrange a couple slides.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[benjamingr]

It doesn't look like there is a sane way to collaboratively edit a
slideshow on slides.com and it doesn't look like it can be exported to
css/html/js reveal code. Can you duplicate it and edit from your account?

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Benjamin Gruenbaum [email protected]
wrote:

Sure, I'll get home and invite you to edit

On Jul 28, 2015, at 21:52, Domenic Denicola [email protected]
wrote:

@benjamingr https://github.com/benjamingr looks pretty good. Is there
any way I can get edit access? I just want to fix a couple typos and
rearrange a couple slides.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#32 (comment)
.