Fix Replace and add recursive option.

[JonghwanWon]

If specify the {all:true} option for the current type Replace, we can expect such as .replaceAll in Javascript.

But the current Replace is not. Constructs the result of replace recursively execution.

declare function replaceAll<
	Input extends string,
	Search extends string,
	Replacement extends string,
>(
	input: Input,
	search: Search,
	replacement: Replacement
): Replace<Input, Search, Replacement, {all: true}>;

replaceAll('foobarfoobar', 'ob', 'b'); //  expected to be "fobarfobar". but is "fbarfbar"

Therefore, the recursive option is added so that it can be accurately distinguished from all.

declare function replaceAll<
	Input extends string,
	Search extends string,
	Replacement extends string,
>(
	input: Input,
	search: Search,
	replacement: Replacement
): Replace<Input, Search, Replacement, {all: true}>;

declare function replaceRecursively<
	Input extends string,
	Search extends string,
	Replacement extends string,
>(
	input: Input,
	search: Search,
	replacement: Replacement
): Replace<Input, Search, Replacement, {recursive: true}>;

replaceAll('foobarfoobar', 'ob', 'b'); // 'fobarfobar'
replaceRecursively('foobarfoobar', 'ob', 'b'); //  'fbarfbar'

[sindresorhus]

This just sounds like a bug in the all option.

// @skarab42

[skarab42]

Therefore, the recursive option is added so that it can be accurately distinguished from all.

I think that we should not add complexity, but simply fix the bug. For me "all" and "recursive" are the same thing.

[skarab42]

In any case, thank you for poiting this bug. Your solution seems very good (without the complexity) ;)

[sindresorhus]

@JonghwanWon Can you drop the recursive option and just make this a bug fix?

[JonghwanWon]

@JonghwanWon Can you drop the recursive option and just make this a bug fix?

Reverted recursive option and simply fixed the bug.

[sindresorhus]

Can you include a test that would fail before this fix? To ensure it doesn't regress in the future.