Mike Samuel

Should ``` javascript RegExp.make`x{3,${ Infinity }}` ``` produce `/x{3,}/` What about ``` javascript RegExp.make`a{${ [1,2] }}` ```

Are you satisfied with the handling of back-references? Would more tests or changes to documentation help others avoid your intitial confusion? What are your thoughts about the semantic gap between...

Closing. I don't think there's a point of disagreement or change requested here.

Fair enough. I'll not it in the doc. I think I probably agree with you, but there's no other way of specifying capturing groups right now in strict mode code...

That wasn't the original reason I did it. I didn't read the spec closely enough to realize that `/\1/` is equivalent to `/\x01/`

The input is normalized to I was surprised because the HTML encoding should not affect the URL seen by the browser and am loathe to stop encoding '+' because that...

This PR does what it says on the tin. Is this driven by some IDE warning?

Which HTML RFC are you quoting? https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/syntax.html#comments seems to disagree. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#parse-errors **does** class `` though instead of `-->`? > And it should be: > > safeString :qwe1qwe2 > safeString :qwe3qwe4...

> +1 to @subbudvk just get any new version out there that gets rid of Guava. Done

> We are quoting this RFC: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1866.txt section 3.2.5. I don't think any modern browser references that standard and, since it's an RFC, it hasn't changes since it was published...