Re: match() (not short, he he)
- Posted by jbrown1050 at hotpop.com May 26, 2003
- 373 views
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:44:08PM -0500, gertie at visionsix.com wrote: > > > On 26 May 2003, at 14:06, jbrown1050 at hotpop.com wrote: > > > > > On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 12:40:31PM -0500, gertie at visionsix.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 26 May 2003, at 16:00, Al Getz wrote: > > > > > > A nice post. But i just thought of something. All the previous posts i > > > read on > > > this (mine included) worked with *strings*, not nested sequences. What > > > about: > > > match("",{"k","","at"}) ? > > > > > > Kat > > > > > > > Even tho "" is in {"k","","at"} at index 2, I don't think match() should > > return 2 in that case. (That would be the job of find("",{"k","","at"}), > > imo.) > > Why? > <snip> Well, alright, what would match("at", {"k","","at"}) return? what would match({"at"}, {"k","","at"}) return? what would match('a', "kat") return? To avoid retyping, i'll add these constants: constant x = {"k","","at"}, y = "" y is an element of x, but it is not a subsequence of it. I think, that using match() to find elements (even if the element itself is a sequence) is a bad idea (but not so bad that it should be a run-time error). I think, we should be universal ... if match(y, x) returns 2, then match('a', "kat") should also return 2. Or am I just being an idiot? jbrown -- /"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/ \ / campain against | Linux User:190064 X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163 /*\ news, and unneeded MIME |