An hour and a half ago, Ryan Culpepper wrote: > Instead of trying to design a 'string-split' that is both > miraculously intuitive and profoundly flexible, why not design it > like a Model-T
Invalid analogy: the issue is not flexibility, it's making something that is simple (first) and useful (second) in most cases. An hour and a half ago, Michael W wrote: > (TL;DR: I'd suggest two functions: one (string-words str) function > that does Eli's way, and one (string-split str sep) that does it > Laurent's way). I don't think that we argued on what it should do, rather it looks like we're both looking for whatever option looks best... > > -> (string-split " st ring") > > '("" "st" "" "ring") > > > > which is why I think that the above is a better definition in terms of > > newbie-ness. > > No, every other language I've worked with does that. > [...] The examples you're quoting are the equivalents of our `regexp-split', which works in a similar way and is not going to change. We're talking about some watered-down version that is easier to use. Just now, Laurent wrote: > (TL;DR: I'd suggest two functions: one (string-words str) > function that does Eli's way, and one (string-split str sep) > that does it Laurent's way). > > That would be a good option to me, considering that "my way" is with > remaining ""s in the output list. The question remains if a string > can be accepted for sep, in which case the empty string must be > considered, as pointed out in the Lua discussion. Though a single > char should be sufficient for nearly all simple cases. I think that I have a good conclusion here, I'll post on a new thread. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev