At Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:43:44 +0200, Laurent wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 14:33, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > > I agree with this: we should add `string-split', the one-argument case > > should be as Eli wrote, > > > About this I'm not sure, as one cannot reproduce this behavior by providing > an argument (or it could make the difference between string-as-not-regexps > and regexps? Wouldn't this be different from other places?).
I'm suggesting that supplying `#f' as the argument would be the same as not supplying the argument. It is a special case, though. I don't mind the specialness here, because I see the job of `string-split' as making a couple of useful special cases easy (as opposed to the generality of `regexp-split'). > It would then appear somewhat magical. To me the " " default splitter seems > more intuitive. > > Laurent > > > > and the two-argument case should be as Laurent > > wrote. (Probably the optional second argument should be string-or-#f, > > where #f means to use #px"\\s+".) > > > > At Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:30:31 +0200, Laurent wrote: > > > (define (string-split str [sep #px"\\s+"]) > > > > (remove* '("") (regexp-split sep str))) > > > > > > > > > > Nearly, I meant something more like this: > > > > > > (define (string-split str [splitter " "]) > > > (regexp-split (regexp-quote splitter) str)) > > > > > > No regexp from the user POV, and much easier to use with little > > knowledge. > > > _________________________ > > > Racket Developers list: > > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > > _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev