3 ms·
With all due respect, you add nothing to the discussion, I already acknowledged this in my OP: "There is only one case that justifies reimplementing things: if
by mrb 14y ago
With all due respect, you add nothing to the discussion, I already acknowledged this in my OP:
"There is only one case that justifies reimplementing things: if your tool has the requirement of supporting the exact js regex syntax..."
(Please read what I wrote, really!)
- acqq 14y agoa) Can you agree that the main reason of open sourcing a JavaScript code is for others to use the same code in their projects, not to "run the command line"? b) Regarding those that do want to "run the command line," can you agree that there are users who really want and need to use JavaScript regexps from the command line and not some other regexps with different semantics? c) Can you accept that these are the valid use cases that your "use sed" arguments just don't cover? I've read your arguments and I've never seen clear acceptance of a) b) and c). I've also seen that you had to carefully think and even improve your "use sed" implementations, giving also the good argument in favor of her approach. Having the tools that demand less from the user is a good thing. Can you accept that (d) too? Can you see why we discuss, when you just quote yourself as "There is only one case"? That's why I claim you're wrong. There's not only one case.