-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35.8k
readline: add unicode line separator option #63789
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
scarab-systems
wants to merge
1
commit into
nodejs:main
Choose a base branch
from
scarab-systems:fix/readline-line-separator-option
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+70
−10
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if a boolean is the correct way, or if we should instead let the user define their own list of separator as suggested in #60606 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That makes sense. I agree a boolean may be too narrow if we are adding a new API surface.
Would an
additionalLineSeparatorsoption be a better shape here? My thinking is that\n,\r, and\r\nshould remain the fixed readline line endings, while this option controls only the extra separators. The default could preserve current behavior with['\u2028', '\u2029'], and JSONL users could pass[]to preserve U+2028/U+2029 inside records.I can rework the PR in that direction if that seems aligned with what you had in mind.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that reverting back to only
\n/\ris likely a goal, though that would be a semver change, so we'd better land that separately. We could add a optionlineSeparatorsthat would take either a string, a regex, and maybe some magic values (e.g.Symbol.for('nodejs.readline.classic'),Symbol.for('nodejs.readline.unicode'))There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That makes sense. I can rework this PR away from
unicodeLineSeparatorsand toward alineSeparatorsoption, while preserving the current default behavior here and leaving any default revert to a separate semver-major change.For this PR, I’ll aim to keep the immediate problem covered by two built-in modes: current Unicode behavior by default, and a classic CR/LF/CRLF-only mode for JSONL-style inputs. If you think custom
string/RegExpseparators should land in the same PR rather than as a follow-up, I can shape it that way too.