[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: T-Discussion at YALE
- Subject: substrings (sigh)
- From: Chris Riesbeck <Riesbeck at YALE>
- Date: Fri ,8 May 82 11:50:00 EDT
Having flamed against "start,count", I must admit that -- given 0-basing
-- "start,count" offers a solution I could live with. Using Rees'
(STRING-SLICE string m n) take n characters of (m to end)
(STRING-SLICE string m -n) drop n characters from (m to end)
To get all but the last character, (STRING-SLICE string 0 -1). Seems
simple, concise, and consistent to me.
SUBSTRING-FROM-END doesn't do the job of getting all but the last N
characters than SUBSTRING. All it does is move the STRING-LENGTH
calculation from the End-point to the Start-point. Conceptually, I
want to say "Get a substring; start at the beginning, end at the
second-last character." The choice of anchor-points is separate from
the action of slicing.
I think Drew's modest proposal would confuse the masses to please the
few (e.g., me).
So -- could people live with negative counts?