Smalltalk › Amber Smalltalk

String match: is actually javascript string.search()

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

3 messages Options

Rudi Angela-2

String match: is actually javascript string.search()

Hi,

Today I needed to split a string into parts using a regular expression, so I browsed the String class to see if there was a method corresponding to the javascript string.match() function. I found a method called match: all right, but it turns out it's not a wrapper for the javascript string function match(), but for search(). I was quite disappointed. So I had to hack the String class and add my own wrapper for the javascript match() function.

Wouldn't it be better to have a match: that wraps javascript match() and a search: (or find: ) that wraps javascript search()?

Rudi

Nicolas Petton

Re: String match: is actually javascript string.search()

Sure, you can report an issue :)

Cheers,
Nico

On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 09:17 -0700, Rudi Angela wrote:

> Hi,
> Today I needed to split a string into parts using a regular
> expression, so I browsed the String class to see if there was a method
> corresponding to the javascript string.match() function. I found a
> method called match: all right, but it turns out it's not a wrapper
> for the javascript string function match(), but for search(). I was
> quite disappointed. So I had to hack the String class and add my own
> wrapper for the javascript match() function.
> Wouldn't it be better to have a match: that wraps javascript match()
> and a search: (or find: ) that wraps javascript search()?
>
>
> Rudi

Hannes Hirzel

Re: String match: is actually javascript string.search()

On 10/21/11, Nicolas Petton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sure, you can report an issue :)
>
> Cheers,
> Nico
>
> On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 09:17 -0700, Rudi Angela wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Today I needed to split a string into parts using a regular
>> expression, so I browsed the String class to see if there was a method
>> corresponding to the javascript string.match() function. I found a
>> method called match: all right, but it turns out it's not a wrapper
>> for the javascript string function match(), but for search(). I was
>> quite disappointed. So I had to hack the String class and add my own
>> wrapper for the javascript match() function.
>> Wouldn't it be better to have a match: that wraps javascript match()
>> and a search: (or find: ) that wraps javascript search()?

Rudi,

Yes, I think so. For documentation and compatibility with JavaScript
reason I think it is good to let the JavaScript methods 'shine
through'. On the other side as you report people expect the Smalltalk
string operations to be there.

What Nicolas means is that you get an account on github if you don't
have one and report an issue for
https://github.com/NicolasPetton/amber

--Hannes

>