Re: [Chicken-users] irregex-replace return value

[Alex Shinn]

Hi Michele,

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Michele La Monaca <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi,

I've noticed that irregex-replace returns the original string
if no replacement takes place. I think its a very poor choice.

Whether or not a replacement was actually made can be an important
piece of information which is lost returning the original string.
The "correct" return value should be #f.

Ditto irregex-replace/all.

I've used irregex-replace{,/all} and equivalents in other

languages for a long time, and find the current semantics

most convenient.  I can see in some cases wanting to test

for a replacement, or in irregex-replace-all the number of

replacements, but it seems to be by far the rarer case

(varying with individual programming style).

Your options right now in these cases are to test for the

match then apply the subst manually, or write a utility to

do so.

If you're interested, there's also SRFI 115 currently under

discussion for standard Scheme regular expressions.

-- 

Alex