On 20 February 2013 08:38, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>
> On 2013-02-20, at 09:26, Frank Shearar wrote:
>
>> On 20 Feb 2013, at 0:49, Chris Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Frank Shearar
>>> wrote:
>>>
It is indeed strange behavior, but I think we inherited that from s
On 2013-02-20, at 09:26, Frank Shearar wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2013, at 0:49, Chris Cunningham wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Frank Shearar
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It is indeed strange behavior, but I think we inherited that from squeak.
>>
>> No, Squeak has (since 2005) had still anothe
On 20 Feb 2013, at 0:49, Chris Cunningham wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Frank Shearar
> wrote:
>
> > It is indeed strange behavior, but I think we inherited that from squeak.
>
> No, Squeak has (since 2005) had still another behaviour:
>
> '' subStrings: ';'
> '1;2;3' subStri
On 2013-02-20, at 08:05, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>> No, Squeak has (since 2005) had still another behaviour:
>>
>> '' subStrings: ';'
>> '1;2;3' subStrings: ';' #('1' '2' '3')
>>
>> (Note the ';' rather than $;, because Squeak's version takes a String
>> of separators.)
>
> so yes, exactly t
> No, Squeak has (since 2005) had still another behaviour:
>
> '' subStrings: ';'
> '1;2;3' subStrings: ';' #('1' '2' '3')
>
> (Note the ';' rather than $;, because Squeak's version takes a String
> of separators.)
so yes, exactly the same as in Pharo.
=> we inherited it from Squeak!
=> subS
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Frank Shearar wrote:
> > It is indeed strange behavior, but I think we inherited that from squeak.
>
> No, Squeak has (since 2005) had still another behaviour:
>
> '' subStrings: ';'
> '1;2;3' subStrings: ';' #('1' '2' '3')
>
> (Note the ';' rather than $;, be
On 19 February 2013 22:52, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>
> On 2013-02-19, at 18:41, "Esteban A. Maringolo" wrote:
>
>> 2013/2/19 Camillo Bruni :
>>
>>> On 2013-02-19, at 17:15, James Foster wrote:
On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Camillo Bruni wrote:
> '' splitOn: $;
And your point is? I
On 2013-02-19, at 18:41, "Esteban A. Maringolo" wrote:
> 2013/2/19 Camillo Bruni :
>
>> On 2013-02-19, at 17:15, James Foster wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Camillo Bruni wrote:
'' splitOn: $;
>>> And your point is? I'm afraid I'm not able to interpret your message. What
>>
Thanks for the more detailed explanation. I see the point now. I hadn't read
carefully enough.
James
On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>
> On 2013-02-19, at 17:15, James Foster wrote:
>
>> On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>>
>>> '' splitOn: $;
>>
>>
2013/2/19 Camillo Bruni :
> On 2013-02-19, at 17:15, James Foster wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>>> '' splitOn: $;
>> And your point is? I'm afraid I'm not able to interpret your message. What
>> does an array of one or five empty strings mean? A terse reply li
On 2013-02-19, at 17:15, James Foster wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Camillo Bruni wrote:
>
>> '' splitOn: $;
>
> And your point is? I'm afraid I'm not able to interpret your message. What
> does an array of one or five empty strings mean? A terse reply like this
> suggests eithe
On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Camillo Bruni wrote:
> '' splitOn: $;
And your point is? I'm afraid I'm not able to interpret your message. What does
an array of one or five empty strings mean? A terse reply like this suggests
either an email error with an incomplete message or that you think
'' splitOn: $;
On 2013-02-19, at 16:30, Friedrich Dominicus
wrote:
> I do not know if that is standardized. But the current behavior of
> subStrings is that something like:
> '1;;2;3;4' subStrings: ';'
>
> yields:
> #('1' '2' '3' '4')
>
> that means the array may get longer or shorter w
I do not know if that is standardized. But the current behavior of
subStrings is that something like:
'1;;2;3;4' subStrings: ';'
yields:
#('1' '2' '3' '4')
that means the array may get longer or shorter with the same number of
separators.
Shouldn't there be some kind of alternative which would
14 matches
Mail list logo
