So the request to get subgroups from `regexp-match*' is not new, and
since I've seen it twice in a week I'm going to add it. What I'm
thinking to do is some `regexp-match**' that takes another argument
that is the function to apply on the usual results of `regexp-match'.
Assuming that this is the
If you are going to make a new, more general function you could make
all of the arguments keyword based.
Robby
On Saturday, June 4, 2011, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
So the request to get subgroups from `regexp-match*' is not new, and
since I've seen it twice in a week I'm going to
Why does regexp-match** need to take this extra argument? Can't we
just use map like normal?
If we want users to process each match in turn, possibly to allow
early garbage collection, it sounds like an in-regexp-matches sequence
would be better.
Carl Eastlund
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:08 PM,
You wrote:
(define (regexp-match* . xs)
(apply regexp-match** car xs))
I'm asking why it's not just this instead:
(define (regexp-match* . xs)
(map car (apply regexp-match** xs))
Why does regexp-match** need to do the mapping?
Carl Eastlund
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Eli Barzilay
50 minutes ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
You wrote:
(define (regexp-match* . xs)
(apply regexp-match** car xs))
I'm asking why it's not just this instead:
(define (regexp-match* . xs)
(map car (apply regexp-match** xs))
Why does regexp-match** need to do the mapping?
Because
5 matches
Mail list logo
