Re: [Chicken-hackers] substring function and bounds checks

[Alex Shinn]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:26 PM, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:

Alex Shinn scripsit:

> The warning is important, and this again emphasizes that there
> are two _unrelated_ functions - extraction and truncation - and
> that combining them is a bad idea.

The warning is important -- when it's important.  In my case, it was
important to avoid cluttering the exception log with spurious complaints
about the results of a process outside anyone's control.

Then comment out the logging, or use a verbosity level.  The most

important thing with a hacky language and hacky formats is to be precise

about your parsing.

In any case, that has zero to do with whether it makes sense to package
this behavior as a procedural abstraction.  Please note that I am *not*
arguing that Chicken's substring should behave this way, just that a
convenient implementation of the loose behavior does have use cases.

I think none of the Schemers are arguing that substring should be changed.

I'm arguing further that the slice function is an artifact of languages that

have slicing as syntax, but here is actually a confused composition of two

operations.  The only example provided was fairly obscure and it was

indeed a composition, even if you don't think it's worth separating them

for logging or other handling.

-- 

Alex