<ed>I am not making a big stink about this. My belief is that names are important, especially in a library. I like to discuss such things.</ed>
Just to be more precise, what I am not fond of in "splitVerb", as in "splitPreserve", is that *what* is to be preserved is not specified and in my IMO not obvious, which is why I prefer, in the replacement of a boolean method (about which I am neutral), "splitVerbObject", as in maybe "splitKeepAllTokens". When I read code and I see splitKeepAllTokens (or something like it) I can pretty much guess (I think) what is going to happen. Now, you guys can tell that it is 100% obvious that the name "splitPreserve" describes an API that preserves all of the tokens (after all what else is there to preserve I wonder, but I do not have to wonder if you tell me in the name), in which case I'll happily believe you. My preference is too err on the side of verbosity and non-mysterious API names vs. brevity ;-) The C days are long gone :-) Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Caswell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 16:51 > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > Subject: RE: [lang] StringUtils.split ignores empty items (Bugzilla bug# > 22692) > > Gary didn't like splitPreserve. I originally suggested splitPreserve so > that's fine by me. I could also go with splitAll. > > And I agree, I don't like the boolean flags either. > > > Steven Caswell > Sun Certified Java Programmer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and > degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is > worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is > willing > to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is > a > miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so > by the exertions of better men than himself." .... John Stuart Mill. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 6:28 PM > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: Re: [lang] StringUtils.split ignores empty items > > (Bugzilla bug# 22692) > > > > > > StringUtils currently has no boolean flags in method args, > > and I want to keep it that way. > > > > splitAll? > > 'Split the string keeping All the tokens' > > > > splitPreserve? > > 'Split the string Preserving all the tokens' > > > > Stephen > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Steven Caswell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I agree the name is not great. I'm not sure the other > > suggestions convey the method behavior either. I typically > > don't like adding a boolean to change the behavior, but > > rather have a different method of similar name, but I can't > > think of a great name either. > > > > A few more suggestions: > > - splitIncludeEmptyTokens > > - splitKeepEmptyTokens > > - splitWithEmptyTokens > > > > I think I like splitIncludeEmptyTokens the best. But to not > > keep beating this one to death, if one of these is not > > suitable, let's just go with adding a boolean argument. > > > > Steven Caswell > > Sun Certified Java Programmer > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The > > decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling > > that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The > > person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, > > nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, > > is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free > > unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than > > himself." .... John Stuart Mill. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 12:45 PM > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > Subject: RE: [lang] StringUtils.split ignores empty items (Bugzilla > > > bug# 22692) > > > > > > > > > Indeed not a great name. "splitPreserve" does not tell you > > what it is > > > preserving. How about: > > > > > > - Instead of splitPreserve, split with boolean argument. > > > - Use another word: "Keep" or "Include" or "With", with or without > > > "what" is preserved: > > > - splitKeep > > > - splitKeepSeparator > > > - splitWith > > > - splitWithSeparator > > > - splitInclude > > > - splitIncludeSeparator > > > > > > ? > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 15:43 > > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > > Subject: Re: [lang] StringUtils.split ignores empty items > > (Bugzilla > > > bug# > > > > 22692) > > > > > > > > Although splitPreserve isn't a great name, I can't thinkn > > > of a better > > > one. > > > > This does seem to be requested functionality for a utils class in > > > addition > > > > to Tokenizer, so +1. > > > > > > > > Stephen > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Steven Caswell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Regarding the solution for > > > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22692, > > in addition > > > to > > > > the > > > > fine work on the Tokenizer class, I'd like to address the initial > > > > complaint about how the split methods treat adjacent > > > separators as one > > > separator. I > > > > agree with Juergen that adjacent separators should not be > > > treated this > > > > way, but should return an empty array element for adjacent > > > separators. > > > > > > > > I propose to create an additional set of split methods that would > > > preserve > > > > separators. To preserve backward compatibility, I propose > > > it be called > > > > splitPreserve to distinguish from the existing split method. The > > > > functionality would be: > > > > > > > > For an input string of "a:b:::d" the return array would be > > > array[0] = > > > > "a" array[1] = "b" > > > > array[2] = "" > > > > array[3] = "" > > > > array[4] = "d" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steven Caswell > > > > Sun Certified Java Programmer > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The > > > decayed and > > > > degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks > > > that nothing > > > is > > > > worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for > > which he is > > > > willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own > > > > personal > > > safety, is > > > > a > > > > miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and > > > kept so > > > > by the exertions of better men than himself." .... John > > Stuart Mill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
