with the separate arguments solution the 'limit' argument is unusable
with the array solution you have a punctuation nightmare
the required regex seems easier in comparison
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum
ing...@gmail.com wrote:
Splitting by one value or another
Splitting by one value or another seems to be a pretty common use case if
Stack Overflow questions and personal experience are an indication. For
example - and and /.
Currently, the solution is to pass a regular expression to
String.prototype.split .
However, it would be nice to be able to
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum
ing...@gmail.com wrote:
Splitting by one value or another seems to be a pretty common use case if
Stack Overflow questions and personal experience are an indication. For
example - and and /.
Currently, the solution is to pass a
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is subjective, as I have no trouble reading and understanding what
this means and is expected to do (also subjective).
Of course, this is another way to do it that does not require knowing
regular expressions. I
I stopped here
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum
ing...@gmail.com wrote:
```
myString.split(/ |-|\/|\+/g); // this is no fun to read
myString.split( ,-,/,+); // this is easier
myString.split([ ,-,/,+]); // this is also easier.
```
easier for
also, this is the same:
`myString.split(/[ -/+]/)`
maybe it's better to explain those users that knowing RegExp might bring
benefits for their purpose (coding) ?
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I stopped here
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
also, this is the same: `myString.split(/[ -/+]/)`
Yes, that's true, not sure how that works for multi character delimiters.
maybe it's better to explain those users that knowing RegExp might bring
benefits
typo: Non highly trained professionals should *do* simple things
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
How could change 12+ years of legacy be considered inexpensive ?
Non highly trained professionals should be simple things or try to learn
How could change 12+ years of legacy be considered inexpensive ?
Non highly trained professionals should be simple things or try to learn
something new that won't hurt, that's why Stack Overflow exists in first
place, to ask for help or explanations about things.
This request sounds to me like I
It's hard to add extra optional arguments to a long-standing built-in.
People write code that passes an extra arg that has been ignored till
the change; browsers that try shipping the new version then break that
content, user blames browser (rightly so) but also the page, sometimes
(not
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
How could change 12+ years of legacy be considered inexpensive ?
This proposal does not break anything, the only thing that will/might work
differently is people passing an array to .split right now and
It does break in many ways as also Brendan said.
`''.split(what, ever)`
would break
plus
`some1,2thing.split([1,2])`
you have no idea what you could find in legacy code ... so whatever a 12+
years old legacy does shold keep doing like that and if you really want to
put your array in there
also, to reply your question Are you against changes like `.contains` or
`.startsWith` too?
Absolutely not, and these are new methods indeed. Perfectly in line with
what you wrote:
Why have `str.contains` if you can just do `~str.indexOf`. Why have
`.startsWith`, or `.indexOf` on arrays?
You
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum
ing...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
How could change 12+ years of legacy be considered inexpensive ?
This proposal does not break anything, the only thing
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com
wrote:
What about the version with the overload accepting an Array instead? It
seems more backwards compatible than the varargs version.
I meant the version accepting an array `.split([a,b,c])` rather than
`.split(a,b,c)`
15 matches
Mail list logo
