On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Michele La Monaca
mikele.chic...@lamonaca.net wrote:
After some more mulling, I concluded that it would be even more
convenient to have a generalised version of irregex-replace-match
which also accepts lists of matches:
(irregex-replace-match
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Michele La Monaca
mikele.chic...@lamonaca.net wrote:
(define (my-own-irregex-replace irx s . o)
(let ((m (irregex-search irx s)))
(and m (string-append
(substring s 0 (irregex-match-start-index m 0))
(apply string-append (reverse
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Michele La Monaca
mikele.chic...@lamonaca.net wrote:
While writing my own version of irregex-replace can be (hopefully) an
enjoyable
6-line coding experience (btw, irregex-apply-match is not documented):
Oops, thanks, I'll document it.
(define
(define (my-own-irregex-replace irx s . o)
(let ((m (irregex-search irx s)))
(and m (string-append
(substring s 0 (irregex-match-start-index m 0))
(apply string-append (reverse (irregex-apply-match m o)))
(substring s (irregex-match-end-index m 0)
Hi Michele,
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Michele La Monaca
mikele.chic...@lamonaca.net wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed that irregex-replace returns the original string
if no replacement takes place. I think its a very poor choice.
Whether or not a replacement was actually made can be an
Hi Alex,
I've used irregex-replace{,/all} and equivalents in other
languages for a long time, and find the current semantics
most convenient. I can see in some cases wanting to test
for a replacement, or in irregex-replace-all the number of
replacements, but it seems to be by far the rarer
Hi,
I've noticed that irregex-replace returns the original string
if no replacement takes place. I think its a very poor choice.
Whether or not a replacement was actually made can be an important
piece of information which is lost returning the original string.
The correct return value should be
