3 ms·
If there is no need in using replaceAll() with regexes, why would it even support it? I agree that only replacing the first occurrence is the wrong solution. T
by bendiksolheim 7y ago
If there is no need in using replaceAll() with regexes, why would it even support it?
I agree that only replacing the first occurrence is the wrong solution. That would be surprising. The only correct solution to this is in my opinion auto-g-ing the regular expression, no matter how unusual that is. There is no way you would write replaceAll() as a mistake when you actually just meant replace().
- TheRealPomax 7y agoMostly to keep the signature for replaceAll in line with replace. You _can_ call it with a regex, but then you'll have to make sure it's a regex that uses the correct syntax for "replace-all" behaviour. If you don't, now you're doing something so weird that an error is the only appropriate response. <<There is no way you would write replaceAll() as a mistake when you actually just meant replace(). >> Have you ever reviewed the daily work of colleagues or contributors who haven't used JS day in day for the last 2 years? That's exactly the kind of mistake that happens _all_ the time. And people new to JS are more than happy to reach for regex well before there's a good reason to use them.