I would be in favor to have a nice oo solution :) I do not know what means "uses a sequence to split a sequence."
Stef > 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 > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
