Thanks for taking a look Christopher!

Christopher Lam <christopher.lck@gmail.com> writes:

> I think the last test should be:
>
>   (pass-if "string-split-substring - non-empty, trailing delimiters"
>     (equal? (string-split-substring "barfoo" "foo")
>             (list "bar" ""))))

Good catch, thank you! I have fixed it in the updated patch attached to
this email.

> And isn't it more efficient to use substring/shared instead of
> substring?

It might? However, it seems like that would violate the functional
expection that modifying the strings returned from the function wouldn't
change the string that was being split.

Quoting the manual:

> Scheme Procedure: substring/shared str start [end]
> C Function: scm_substring_shared (str, start, end)
>
>     Like substring, but the strings continue to share their storage
>     even if they are modified. Thus, modifications to str show up in
>     the new string, and vice versa.

That seems like surprising behavior to me (when you don't know that they
are shared). In case sharing is important, one can add a
`string-split-substring/shared' procedure?

~ Vijay