You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As of now, the current regex (#\{([0-9]+)\.\.(\.?)([0-9]+)\}#i) allows both user{1..10} and user{1...10}. This makes it error prone which can be nice.
However, I think this can confuse the user as well (does it work well? Is it by design I as can't see anything in the doc about that?) and also if we support that I see no reason to not support user{0......10} for example.
Instead what about removing this behaviour in v3 and deprecating it in v2?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As of now, the current regex (
#\{([0-9]+)\.\.(\.?)([0-9]+)\}#i
) allows bothuser{1..10}
anduser{1...10}
. This makes it error prone which can be nice.However, I think this can confuse the user as well (does it work well? Is it by design I as can't see anything in the doc about that?) and also if we support that I see no reason to not support
user{0......10}
for example.Instead what about removing this behaviour in v3 and deprecating it in v2?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: