On Tue, 2012-09-18 at 15:55 -0400, Chris K. Jester-Young wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 08:59:33PM +0800, nalaginrut wrote:
> > Anyway, if there're so many people like this nice thing, why not we add
> > it (at any option of these three implementations) into ice-9?
>
> Oh noes! This is where th
Here's a revised version, implementing Thien-Thi Nguyen's comments. I
added line breaks for the "cons" and the bottom "if" (I feel that the
top "if" is still simple enough to keep on the same line).
Cheers,
Chris.
* * *
(define (regexp-split-fold match prev)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 08:59:33PM +0800, nalaginrut wrote:
> Anyway, if there're so many people like this nice thing, why not we add
> it (at any option of these three implementations) into ice-9?
Oh noes! This is where the bikeshedding begins. ;-)
Seriously, I do think having a regexp-split in
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 09:06:55AM +0200, Sjoerd van Leent Privé wrote:
> It might just be me, but would it not be more sensible for scheme to
> just perform the opposite. Return the same amount of fields at most,
> but starting from the end, thus:
>
> (regexp-split ":" "foo:bar:baz:qux:" -3)
> =>
Hello,
today I filed a bug on generalized-vector->list
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12465
I remember similar bugs in the past, and I'm thinking that these functions are
redundant since we have array-ref, array->list, and so on, which also work on
strings, uniform vectors, etc.
I had the same topic before:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2011-12/msg00247.html
Actually, there's an older thread than mine before:
http://old.nabble.com/regex-split-for-Guile-td31093245.html
Anyway, if there're so many people like this nice thing, why not we add
it (at any option
Hi Chris,
I have been following your thread about regexp-split. I do have some
thoughts about this to make the interface more versalite.
So, basically, the Perl split's limit is used this way:
1. Positive limit: Return this many fields at most:
(regexp-split ":" "foo:bar:baz:qux:" 3)
