[racket-dev] Very quick poll re `string-trim'

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Fri May 11 08:15:43 EDT 2012

Did you consider an optional argument to string-trim?


On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> Should (string-trim str sep) remove any number of `sep' matches or
> just one?  (This makes no difference for the default `sep' since it's
> #px"\\s+".)  Possible options below, feel free to mail me off-list to
> reduce noise.
> 1. Yes.
>   * Advantage: makes life with string separator a bit easier.  For
>     example, remove only newlines with (string-trim str "\n")
>   * Disadvantage: can be confusing with strings or regexps like "xy".
>     For example:
>       (string-trim ", , foo, bar, " #rx", *") => "foo, bar"
> 2. No.  Flipped dis/advantages.
> 3. Yes for string separators, no for (p)regexp separators.  Tries to
>   get both advantages, but at the cost of non-uniform behavior.
> I'm leaning towards #2 since (a) it's less surprising in the regexp
> and >=2 string cases, and (b) it'll make similar to other functions
> like `string-split' where an implicit repetition is a bad idea (eg,
> when you split with "," you'd usually want that to mean #rx"," not
> #rx",+").  OTOH, I hate to loose the possibly useful case of
> 1-character strings.
> --
>          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!
> _________________________
>  Racket Developers list:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev

Posted on the dev mailing list.