On 2013-02-19, at 17:15, James Foster <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Camillo Bruni <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ';;;;' splitOn: $; > > And your point is? I'm afraid I'm not able to interpret your message. What > does an array of one or five empty strings mean? A terse reply like this > suggests either an email error with an incomplete message or that you think > that the information provided is so obvious that there is only one way to > interpret your message. If you think that the current implementation is > useful, I'd be interested in reading a realistic use case. Apparently you like to write a lot, I don't.. so in verbose plain english: Q: "Shouldn't there be some kind of alternative which would yield?" A: Yes there is, use #splitOn: Example: -------- '1;;2;3;4' splitOn: $; yields: an OrderedCollection('1' '' '2' '3' '4') Reduced Example: ---------------- ';;;;' subStrings: ';' ===> #() ';;;;' splitOn: $; ===> an OrderedCollection('' '' '' '' '') >> On 2013-02-19, at 16:30, Friedrich Dominicus <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I do not know if that is standardized. But the current behavior of >>> subStrings is that something like: >>> '1;;2;3;4' subStrings: ';' >>> >>> yields: >>> #('1' '2' '3' '4') >>> >>> that means the array may get longer or shorter with the same number of >>> separators. >>> >>> Shouldn't there be some kind of alternative which would yield? >>> #('1' '' '2' '3' '4') >>> >>> Maybe there is a reason for the first decision. If not what would be the >>> problem with having it both ways?
