OpenEuphoria

RE: match() (not short, he he)

• Posted by gertie at visionsix.com May 26, 2003
• 397 views

On 26 May 2003, at 18:49, Al Getz wrote:

> 
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
> Hello again,
> 
> I think you meant
> 
> match({""},{"k","","at"})
> 
> right?
> 
> I meant to mention that i noticed that match works for
> match({""},{"k","a","t"})

Because as you point out later, {""} isn't an empty or null {}.

> length({""})
> returns 1, which says something is there also, while
> length("")
> returns 0, which says nothing is there at all.

I use length() a lot, just for this sort of fault tolerance in ""
strings/sequences.
 
> Any other interesting ideas like that?
> I hope you have some more, i'd like to hear them too 

Yes, strangely enough, i have other ideas. 

i'd prefer 

match('a',"something") 

to not fail because of the alledgedly abhorent reason that 'a' isn't a sequence.
It's too late to change, but i'd prefer 

match('a',"kat") 

to return 2, since the 'a' in "kat" is an atom. And 

match("b",{"a",'b',"b","c"})

to return 3, because the third element "b" in the second parameter of match 
is a sequence, and the 2nd parameter isn't. I haveto test parms in match() for 
that first parm being a sequence all the time too.

Kat