Re: Rationale for change in behavior of g_strsplit when passed empty string?

[Joel Becker <jlbec evilplan org>]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 08:17:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> 
> The _right_ behavior is a tricky question. Logic says:
> Empty elements are allowed internally:
> 
>     g_strsplit ("a:b:c")  => "a", "b", "c"
>     g_strsplit ("a::c")  => "a", "", "c"
> 
> So, if we we treat empty elements as valid, we can't treat "" as meaning
> an empty list. 
> 
>     g_strsplit ("b")  => "b"
>     g_strsplit ("")  => ""
> 
> But practicality says there should be _some_ way of representing an
> empty list.

	I've found the most annoying thing about strsplit() to me is the
boilerplate

if ((strv == NULL) || (strv[0] == NULL))

	as a method to check if the split was on an empty string.
strv[0][0] == '\0' meant an empty leading field.  With the new 1.3
behavior I need to check all my code ;-).  Up until now my assumption
has been that strv[0] == "" and strv[1] == NULL means that the string
was ":" for a delimiter of ":".  This fails to work under the new code
and probably has implications for anyone parsing a known delimited
field (where escaping isn't an issue).
	I'm not sure it is such a big deal.  Just another two checks to
type:

if ((strv == NULL) || (strv[0] == NULL) ||
    ((strv[0][0] == '\0') && (strv[1] == NULL)))

	or somesuch.  Maybe it is easier.  But I don't know there is a
big, good reason for adding it.

Joel


-- 

"Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain."
                                          -- Freidrich von Schiller 

			http://www.jlbec.org/
			jlbec evilplan org