больной человек

For cleverness sure but is this actually best practice? I rather have a simple function with clear checks than complicated regex not everyone understand in my codebase.

Regular expressions are never easy to read. It doesn't mean we can't use them.

Nothing undocumented going on here. Read the MDN docs again and look for "offset". It is of course the second parameter in this case since there's no groups in the regex.

Had the same issue a few times now. Maybe I didn't look in the correct places but I've never seen a specification for the function parameters of the replace method. At least now I learned something :)

This is how I wanted to implement my solution, but I couldn't find the documentation for how to get the index position of the current item in replace(). Anyone else have the same problem?

I know the answer is somehwere in the "Specifying a function as a parameter" section of MDN, but when I read over that section, nothing there stands out as a method of returning an index value. (Great solution, BTW)

Well done. I think you can improve this beautiful regex by replacing the capture groups with non capture groups () => (?:). You dont need to store the matches and use them later.

I wish I had these regex skillz.

Gotta love the power of Regex!!

Savage MOVE!

For what it's worth, I don't think the author of this solution thinks this is best practice. I assume they just wanted to write it as one regex.

This is clever but certainly not best practice. For me, best practice means easy to read and understand.

so..how about 24[0-9],here only get 25[0-5]