Re: Why (substring "abc" 0 4) does not return "abc" instead of an error?

[Bastien]

Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Bastien <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> I read (substring "abc" 0 4) as "return the biggest substring
>> between 0 and 4" -- even if the string does not have 4 characters.
>
> "Even if the string does not have 4 characters" is not even suggested
> in substring's doc.

I know -- I was just expressing my spontaneous (and erroneous)
assumption.

>> Surely I misread, but this would be handy in some cases, instead
>> of using something like (format "%.4s" "abc").
>
> Would it be handy? Sometimes, perhaps. At other times, having
> substring check that TO is indeed in range is quite useful. 

I would be happy with a third optional argument FAIL-SILENTLY.

> Also, if
> you start with substring, then it will be buffer-substring, and then
> most functions that deal with string ranges, and then buffer ranges?

I get your point and I don't mind a bit of discipline.

Still, `substring' already behaves differently than its cousins
by allowing negative values as arguments.  I have a fuzzy feeling
my expectation comes from this peculiarity, but cannot formalize how

> I'm sure use cases could be found for all these functions where your
> expansive interpretation would be handy...
>
> BTW, for unexpected behavior wrt strings, my favourite is this one
> (it's not a bug);
>
> (let ((s "ab") (m 2)) (eq (substring s 0 m) (substring s 0 m))) => nil
> (let ((s "ab") (m 1)) (eq (substring s 0 m) (substring s 0 m))) => nil
> (let ((s "ab") (m 0)) (eq (substring s 0 m) (substring s 0 m))) => t

Well, this boils down to

(eq "a" "a") => nil
(eq "" "")   => t

where "" is really nil -- I my brain can swallow easily.

-- 
 Bastien