Re: [PATCH] add regexp-split

[Eli Barzilay]

40 minutes ago, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> 
> How about having an optional argument to control the behaviour?  The
> default could be to not include the groups, thus mimicking the
> output of Guile's `string-split' and `regexp-split' in other
> Schemes.

That can work, though I personally prefer a separate name.  (But
obviously, my personal taste has zero weight for guile...)


> If two procedures are implemented they will be almost verbatim copies
> of each other.

Yeah, but that's not an argument in favor or against -- since you can
switch between:

  (define (foo x [other-behavior? #f]) ...code..)

and

  (define (foo-internal x other-behavior?) ...same code...)
  (define (foo x) (foo-internal x #f))
  (define (foo-other x) (foo-internal x #t))

where the internal function is not exported from the library.


> No comment on Perl's handling.
> 
> I think Racket does the right thing by keeping *all* the empty
> strings in place.

Well, I do think that Perl (as well as other libraries & languages)
are a good reference point to compare against...  If anything, you
should at least be aware of other design choices and why you went in a
different direction.  (And we did not follow perl in all aspects, as
those tests clarify.)

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!