Hmm, interesting!
I must confess I'm not familiar with Racket, but I think the aim of Guile
contains practicality.
So I think regex-lib of Guile does this at least.
Anyway, I believe an implementation should do its best to provide any
useful mechanism for the user. Or it won't be popular anymore.
When I talk about "useful", I mean "it brings the user convenient", not
"the developer think it's useful".
Just my mumble, no any offense.
Thank you for telling us this issue. ;-)

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Marijn <hk...@gentoo.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 29-12-11 10:32, Nala Ginrut wrote:
> > hi guilers! It seems like there's no "regexp-split" procedure in
> > Guile. What we have is "string-split" which accepted Char only. So
> > I wrote one for myself.
> >
> > ------python code-----
> >>>> import re re.split("([^0-9])", "123+456*/")
> > [’123’, ’+’, ’456’, ’*’, ’’, ’/’, ’’] --------code end-------
> >
> > The Guile version:
> >
> > ----------guile code------- (regexp-split "([^0-9])"  "123+456*/")
> > ==>("123" "+" "456" "*" "" "/" "") ----------code end--------
> >
> > Anyone interested in it?
>
> Hi there,
>
> I think we're all happy that Guile is getting this support, however I
> couldn't help but notice that the above results look a bit funny and
> indeed are incompatible with racket's implementation:
>
> > (regexp-split "([^0-9])" "123+456*/")
> '("123" "456" "" "")
>
> Apparently because their version doesn't support capturing groups in
> this function. I've raised the issue with them as well, but there are
> some doubts that it is useful/sane to support this. Perhaps other
> schemes' regexp libraries should be compared as well. Their tests
> would certainly be useful and may point out other incompatibilities
> that no-one is aware of (as well as improve your code(!)).
>
> Marijn
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk79jwgACgkQp/VmCx0OL2zCrgCgrCtBGvKaejnfceWj8RaBz+lm
> lfMAoIrR0qr8IFKhFG4KGBevf1LQfoZv
> =2x7Y
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Reply via email to