On Monday, 9 June 2014 at 12:16:30 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Monday, 9 June 2014 at 11:40:24 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Monday, 9 June 2014 at 11:16:18 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Monday, 9 June 2014 at 11:04:12 UTC, Chris wrote:
From the library reference:
assert(equal(splitter("hello world", ' '), [ "hello", "",
"world" ]));
and
"If a range with one separator is given, the result is a
range with two empty elements."
My problem was that if I have input like
auto word = "bla-";
it will return parts.data.length == 2, so I would have to
check parts.data[1] != "". This is too awkward. I just want
the parts of the word, i.e.
length == 2 // grab [0] grab [1]
length == 1 // grab [0] (no second part, as in "bla-")
length > 2 // do something else
You can just pipe in an extra "filter!(a=>!a.empty)", and
it'll do what you want:
put(parts, w.splitter('-').filter!(a=>!a.empty)());
The rational for this behavior, is that it preserves the
"total amount of information" from your input. EG:
assert(equal(myString.spliter(sep).join(sep), myString));
If the empty tokens were all stripped out, that wouldn't
work, you'd have lost information about how many separators
there actually were, and where they were.
I see, I've already popped in a filter. I only wonder how much
of a performance loss that is. Probably negligible.
Arguably, none, since someone has to do the check anyways. If
it's not done "outside" of splitter, it has to be done inside...
Yes, of course. I just thought if it's done in the library
function, the optimization might be better than when it is done
in my code. (filter!() is arguably also in the library :)
