Consider returning a string representing the pattern instead of a RegExp object about regexgen HOT 5 CLOSED

Fixed by #6. Released in v1.2.0.

from regexgen.

#6 didn’t fix this — it just made it easier to fix it. This issue is a change request about the regexgen return value. TL;DR IMHO, it makes more sense to have regexgen(foo) return a string instead of a regular expression object. WDYT?

from regexgen.

Another option would be to just return the Trie from regexgen. Then the user could call toString or toRegExp themselves.

I do like the convenience of just returning a RegExp though. You could do regexgen(words).source to get a string without the slashes when combining. Is your main concern with bugs in JS implementations? The one you linked seems to have been fixed in v8. Are there others you know of?

from regexgen.

Another option would be to just return the Trie from regexgen. Then the user could call toString or toRegExp themselves.

I like this option a lot. As a bonus, doing so would match the Regenerate API. :)

Is your main concern with bugs in JS implementations […]

I don’t know of any others off the top of my head, but if the risk of JS engine bugs can be avoided, then that’s a plus in my book.

That said, my main concern is that the API — in this case, the return value — should match the common use case, not the uncommon one. But perhaps I’m wrong in thinking that getting the pattern as a string is the most common/sensible use case.

I do like the convenience of just returning a RegExp though.

Could you point me to some examples of where you’re using this pattern (see what I did there)? Are you using regexgen at runtime?

from regexgen.

Are you using regexgen at runtime?

No, but my build scripts don't need to combine regexes. So I just do regexgen(words, 'g') instead of something like '/' + regexgen(words) + '/g'.

from regexgen.