Just now, Laurent wrote:
>     1. Laurent: Does this make more sense?
> Yes, this definitely makes more sense to me.  It would then treat
> (string-split "aXXbXXXXy" "X") just like the " " case.
> Although if you want to find the columns of a latex line like "x &&
> y & z" you will have the wrong result.  Maybe use an optional
> argument to remove the empty strings? (not sure)

(This complicates things...)

First, I don't think that there's a need to make it able to do stuff
like that -- either you go with regexps, or you use combinations like

  (map string-trim (string-split "x && y & z" "&"))

>     4. Related to Q3: what does "xy" as that argument mean exactly?
>       a. #rx"[xy]"
>       b. #rx"[xy]+"
>       c. #rx"xy"
>       d. #rx"(?:xy)+"
> Good question. d. would be the simplest case for newbies, but
> b. might be more useful.  I think several other languages avoid this
> issue by using only one character as the separator.

The complication is that with " " or " \t" it seems that you'd want b,
and with "&" you'd want c.  (Maybe even make "&" equivalent to
#rx" *& *" -- that looks like it's too much guessing.)

And you're also making a point for:

  e. Throw an error, must be a single-character string.

BTW, this question is important because it affects other functions, so
I'd like to resolve it before doing anything.

          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

  Racket Developers list:

Reply via email to