RE: strtok
Christian.CUVIER at agriculture.gouv.fr wrote:
>
> Actually, this answers another recent post about strtok.
> Why don't these generic text/sequence handling routines get too
> much attention? I think EuRegExp got even less feedback.
> My tentative answer is: actually, these routines are very powerful,
> since you can do about everything with them putting the right
> params in it. And most people, including myself, find it easier to
> code their own stuff for the specific need they have.
>
> For instance: I needed to separate off the args of a generic
> routine call. Including ugly things like:
>
> MyProc({3,5,s2},sort(f(x,y)),(x=0))
<snip>
> Could I do it using strtok? Likely, given its genericity and sheer
> power, but for this I'd need to study the docs to find the right
> combination, and possibly have to understand your code. That's an
> overhead compared to writing my own routines (they didn't take too
> long to debug).
This is a great point. I've used strtok a fair amount (and sent some
MicroEconomy money its way) for some simple tasks like reading tab
delimited files, but not so much for parsing and demangling more complex
things.
In a more general sense, whenever I start a new project, I find myself
going to the archives to see what's there, and often find something to
reuse. If I find something (and it's usually something that's been
there for a long time) I tend to include it in my next MicroEconomy post
to Rob.
Matt Lewis
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
