From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.xemacs.design,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Rationale for split-string? Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:26:18 -0500 (CDT) Sender: xemacs-design-admin@xemacs.org Message-ID: <200304221626.h3MGQIq12670@eel.dms.auburn.edu> References: <87brz57at2.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <200304171744.h3HHiJCx009215@rum.cs.yale.edu> <87adem27ey.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87ist8yv4n.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <200304212111.h3LLBLK11879@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <20030421234347.GA12507@gnu.org> <200304220326.h3M3Q1912252@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <87smsay8ik.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1051028788 11454 80.91.224.249 (22 Apr 2003 16:26:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:26:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: miles@gnu.org, xemacs-design@xemacs.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: xemacs-design-admin@xemacs.org Tue Apr 22 18:26:26 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from gwyn.tux.org ([199.184.165.135]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1980bB-0002yP-00 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:26:26 +0200 Original-Received: from gwyn.tux.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gwyn.tux.org (8.11.6p2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id h3MGR1M08918; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:27:01 -0400 Original-Received: (from turnbull@localhost) by gwyn.tux.org (8.11.6p2/8.9.1) id h3MGQct08793 for xemacs-design-mailman@xemacs.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:26:38 -0400 Original-Received: (from mail@localhost) by gwyn.tux.org (8.11.6p2/8.9.1) id h3MGQS808723 for turnbull@tux.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:26:28 -0400 Original-Received: from manatee.dms.auburn.edu (manatee.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.104]) by gwyn.tux.org (8.11.6p2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id h3MGQJM08657; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:26:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eel.dms.auburn.edu (eel.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.108]) by manatee.dms.auburn.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3MGQHoc028193; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:26:17 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by eel.dms.auburn.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id h3MGQIq12670; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:26:18 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: eel.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: stephen@xemacs.org In-reply-to: <87smsay8ik.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (stephen@xemacs.org) X-XEmacs-List: design Errors-To: xemacs-design-admin@xemacs.org X-BeenThere: xemacs-design@xemacs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of design and features for XEmacs. List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.xemacs.design:2107 gmane.emacs.devel:13364 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13364 Stephen Turnbull wrote: Note that Miles's proposal would actually give the behavior you want in `(split-string string "\n")'. (Admittedly, you'd like `(split-string string "\n" 'end)' even better.) Point for Miles! Just to make sure I understand what you are proposing: I could not just do (split-string string "\n"), I would first have to check whether the string ended in a newline and, if so, remove that newline before calling split-string (or do something else). Otherwise split-string would return a "fake" empty line at the end of a newline terminated buffer or file. (Correct?) Or are you actually suggesting to remove a final empty match, but keep any initial empty match, exactly the behavior I suggested for "end". That is, would (split-string "\n" "\n") return ("" "") or ("") ? Sincerely, Luc.