OK, I had a closer look. Keith's implementation is completely different from, and pre-dates, that of Damien and myself.
Keith's version works for SequenceableCollections, and uses a sequence to split a sequence. Ours is more tailored towards Strings, and uses a regex to split a String. Perhaps we can consider a merge in which sequences can be split using sequences, and Strings can additionally be split using regexes. We should also take efficiency into account. I did not run any benchmarks yet to compare the implementations Who is interested in merging these two? Cheers, - on On Apr 5, 2009, at 16:25, Oscar Nierstrasz wrote: > > Hi Keith, > > Now I see there are attached files in Mantis. But they all seem to > date from 2006, whereas your latest comments are from Jan 2009. Are > there more recent files from 2009 that I should look at? If so, where > are they? > > What is the best way to proceed? Shall I create a Join project on > SqueakSource, and if it is updated, post the latest version on Mantis > too? > > Cheers, > - on > > On Apr 5, 2009, at 16:08, Keith Hodges wrote: > >> Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >>>> I wrote the split join implementation that is available on mantis >>>> >>>> http://bugs.squeak.org/view.php?id=4874 >>>> >>>> I use it all the time, if you would like to improve on what is >>>> there, please continue to contribute to the mantis page discussion/ >>>> tests and code. That way we will get an polished implementation >>>> that >>>> can be added to squeak or to pharo. >>>> >>>> The suggestion to use #species would be fine (I never use species >>>> myself, because I dont understand what its really for). >>>> >>> >>> or class >>> the point is that you get back a collection of the same kind of the >>> receiver >>> >>>> When stef says "I have checked the code and it looks nice" he didnt >>>> say which code he checked, so I am confused. >>>> >>> >>> I looked at the latest version in the repository mentioned by oscar >>> rubyshards >>> >>> >> Which appears to me to be the opposite of what Oscar suggested. If I >> read the email, he asked what the status of mantis 4874 was, >> anticipating that it be integrated. He had "gone back" to ruby >> shards in >> the absense of the integration of 4784. >> >> Keith >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
