Re: [PATCH] add regexp-split

[Daniel Hartwig]

On 31 December 2011 10:32, Eli Barzilay <address@hidden> wrote:
> 40 minutes ago, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
>> If two procedures are implemented they will be almost verbatim copies
>> of each other.
>
> Yeah, but that's not an argument in favor or against -- since you can
> switch between:
>
>  (define (foo x [other-behavior? #f]) ...code..)
>
> and
>
>  (define (foo-internal x other-behavior?) ...same code...)
>  (define (foo x) (foo-internal x #f))
>  (define (foo-other x) (foo-internal x #t))
>
> where the internal function is not exported from the library.

Ah, I did not think of that :-)

>
>
>> No comment on Perl's handling.
>>
>> I think Racket does the right thing by keeping *all* the empty
>> strings in place.
>
> Well, I do think that Perl (as well as other libraries & languages)
> are a good reference point to compare against...  If anything, you
> should at least be aware of other design choices and why you went in a
> different direction.  (And we did not follow perl in all aspects, as
> those tests clarify.)
>

A good point.  I'm interested to find out the reasoning behind Perl's
decision to drop empty strings..  Seems a strange thing to do IMO.