Advance to stage 3

[mathiasbynens]

Criteria taken from the TC39 process document minus those from previous stages:

• Complete spec text

https://github.com/mathiasbynens/es-regexp-unicode-property-escapes/blob/master/spec.html
https://mathiasbynens.github.io/es-regexp-unicode-property-escapes/

• Designated reviewers have signed off on the current spec text

• Bradley Farias (@bmeck): Advance to stage 3 #3 (comment)
• Waldemar Horwat (@waldemarhorwat): Advance to stage 3 #3 (comment)
• Allen Wirfs-Brock (@allenwb): https://github.com/mathiasbynens/es-regexp-unicode-property-escapes/issues/created_by/allenwb

• The ECMAScript editor has signed off on the current spec text

This happened at the TC39 meeting.

[mathiasbynens]

@bmeck, @waldemarhorwat, @allenwb: Would it be possible to get your review feedback by mid-November? That way it can be addressed by the next TC39 meeting, at which point the proposal might be able to advance to stage 3.

[bmeck]

can we fix the link to https://mathiasbynens.github.io/es-regexp-unicode-property-escapes/

[bmeck]

https://github.com/mathiasbynens/es-regexp-unicode-property-escapes/blob/d649330bd4381487ec35b19984028eca52d4fa75/spec.html#L104 can this be rephrased slightly, I'm not sure I understand or property alias UnicodePropertyName. Is it missing alias [for]? Unclear on UnicodePropertyName being used as a Value if it is a separate Name or the same Name as lhs.

Otherwise looks good.

[mathiasbynens]

Thanks for the review, @bmeck!

[in the OP,] can we fix the link to https://mathiasbynens.github.io/es-regexp-unicode-property-escapes/

Done.

https://github.com/mathiasbynens/es-regexp-unicode-property-escapes/blob/d649330bd4381487ec35b19984028eca52d4fa75/spec.html#L104 can this be rephrased slightly, I'm not sure I understand or property alias UnicodePropertyName. Is it missing alias [for]?

It’s not missing alias [for] — that would change the meaning.

UnicodePropertyName is either:

1. a property name, or
2. an alias for such a property name.

Similarly, UnicodePropertyValue is either:

1. a property value for the abovementioned UnicodePropertyName, or
2. an alias for such a property value.

Unclear on UnicodePropertyName being used as a Value if it is a separate Name or the same Name as lhs.

You mean things like \p{Script=Script}? That results in an early syntax error per https://github.com/mathiasbynens/es-regexp-unicode-property-escapes/blob/d649330bd4381487ec35b19984028eca52d4fa75/spec.html#L91-L96. Apologies if I misunderstood your comment.

[bmeck]

That sentence needs to be rephrased based upon that response, I don't read anything that implies the value is tied to the left hand side. It states value or value alias for the Unicode property and property alias <emu-nt>UnicodePropertyName</emu-nt> might need punctuation to clarify meaning, but also still feel that it is unclear.

• the Unicode property should at least have reference to UnicodePropertyName.
• property alias <emu-nt>UnicodePropertyName</emu-nt> is oddly worded and makes me think there is some second UnicodePropertyName used by the value, and still no relation to the left hand side.

[mathiasbynens]

I don't read anything that implies the value is tied to the left hand side.

Okay, now I’m confused — that’s exactly what the sentence you pointed to says. Here’s the full sentence again:

It is a Syntax Error if UnicodePropertyValue is not a known value or value alias for the Unicode property or property alias UnicodePropertyName.

“[T]he Unicode property or property alias UnicodePropertyName” belongs together as a single unit (similar to how “a known value or value alias” is a single unit):

It is a Syntax Error if UnicodePropertyValue is not a known value or value alias for the Unicode property or property alias UnicodePropertyName.

i.e., as if it was an expansion of:

It is a Syntax Error if UnicodePropertyValue is not a known value or value alias for […] UnicodePropertyName.

You seem to be interpreting it as two distinct parts instead, is that correct?

[bmeck]

I read them as distinct parts yes.

[mathiasbynens]

This phrasing is used all over the spec proposal (⌘+F “[known] Unicode property”). Is it still unclear when reading it in the context of the rest of the spec text? Are the other occurrences confusing too?

[bmeck]

@mathiasbynens that sentence has 2 ors but no punctuation to group things.

[bmeck]

Other occurrences are not confusing, they don't have grouping problem.

[mathiasbynens]

What would you suggest? I can’t think of a way to insert a comma into that sentence without changing the meaning.

[bmeck]

The sentence has no clear meaning to me so idk. I would completely reword it so that you don't have a many to many relationship. Probably make multiple sentences.

[miketaylr]

I feel like adding parens is helpful here:

It is a Syntax Error if UnicodePropertyValue is not a known value (or value alias) for the Unicode property (or property alias) UnicodePropertyName.

[waldemarhorwat]

The proposal seems fine except that the semantics of \p{...} appear to be missing. I’m assuming that they’re the same as \P{...} but without the negation.

[mathiasbynens]

This proposal advanced to stage 3 at the March 21st TC39 meeting.

The remaining feedback (open issues) will, of course, be addressed.