Dead simple straight-up performant interpolation

makeInterpolator.js

/**
 * Outputs a new function with interpolated object property values.
 * Use like so:
 *   var fn = makeInterpolator('some/url/{param1}/{param2}');
 *   fn({ param1: 123, param2: 456 }); // => 'some/url/123/456'
 */
var makeInterpolator = (function() {
  var rc = {
    '\n': '\\n', '\"': '\\\"',
    '\u2028': '\\u2028', '\u2029': '\\u2029'
  };
  return function makeInterpolator(str) {
    return new Function(
      'o',
      'return "' + (
        str
        .replace(/["\n\r\u2028\u2029]/g, function($0) {
          return rc[$0];
        })
        .replace(/\{([\s\S]+?)\}/g, '" + o["$1"] + "')
      ) + '";'
    );
  };
}());

var url = makeInterpolator('http://something.com/{param}/{foo}?x={n}');

url({
  param: '123',
  foo: '456',
  n: 789
});

Also, why .replace(/"/g, '\\$&') and not just .replace(/"/g, '\\"') ? Easier to read.

@qfox -- ah please excuse the verbose code -- tis remnant of legacy iterations. I shall correct it :)

@JamesMGreene: I tried something like this:

replace(/["\r\n]/g, '\\$&')

But since we would then be replacing a literal \n with \\\n it won't work. The compiled Function requires the actual literal string \\n but this cannot be generated in such a meta way without directly writing it AFAIK. (brain silently implodes)

Give it a try though -- I may have missed something very obvious...

@calvinmetcalf AFAICT that runs the replace(...) at runtime when passing the data, right? My intent with this interpolator was runtime performance, sacrificing creation-time performance, hence the creation of a compiled Function with a straight-up concatenation inside.

@mathiasbynens: tbh I wasn't inspired by RFC6570 -- but looking at it now it seems v. useful. I also found https://github.com/fxa/uritemplate-js

@padolsey FWIW, @rodneyrehm’s URI.js also supports it: http://medialize.github.io/URI.js/uri-template.html

Only special-casing \n and \r is not enough. Having \u2028 or \u2029 in the input string still throws an error. Just replace them with their (double-)escaped equivalents and you’ll be fine.

@mathiasbynens: cool, thanks! -- just edited it.

@padolsey I got what you were going for after I read your blog post