Thanks for the more detailed explanation. I see the point now. I hadn't read carefully enough.
James On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Camillo Bruni <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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? > > >
