World: r3wp

I will probably rewrite it completly before though

Gezz, I wanted tp say HE not I

*wanted to say He (Brian)

Ok, time to go bed, it seems

It seems the parse behaviour changed somewhere a few times..
Nevertheless I think split is overloaded and overcomplicated.

The parse rules should better go in a PARSE Common Patterns library, 
that is included with Rebol,
not unlike http://www.rebol.com/article/0508.html

How would you redesign it?

Well, for one thing, complex, flexible mezzanine functions tend to 
be slowed down by the conditional code that determines the actual 
behavior desired in a particular case. There are real advantages 
to seperating a complex function into multiple smaller, simpler functions. 
This makes it so the choices about which set of behavior to use are 
made by the programmer at development time instead of by the interpreter 
at runtime. SPLIT is a really large function that does many different 
things, so it's a good candidate for such a function split.

I liked Carl's idea of a SPLIT function that takes a series and returns 
the series from the head to the offset, and from the offset to the 
end. Like this:

    split: func [series [series!]] [reduce [copy/part head series series 
    copy series]]

At most, add a option to control the copying. Then have a seperate 
function split on a delimeter, another split into a number of parts, 
etc.

There are some mezzanine functions that have to be large and complex 
for other reasons. For instance, a couple of the LOAD subfunctions 
need to have functionality bundled together for security purposes. 
This doesn't seem to be the case with SPLIT.

It's one of the ironies of R3 that for a language that touts its 
ability to create user-designed dialects, inside the R3 mezzanine 
code, dialected functions are often too slow to be efficient enough 
for inclusion. This is why most of the builtin dialects are implemented 
in native code, through natives or commands. A dialect needs to be 
efficient enough to merit its use as opposed to the procedural equivalent, 
and easy enough to comprehend that the users of the dialect are likely 
to use it, rather than a simpler alternative. Developers' minds have 
overhead too.

If optimization is the goal, we can certainly write specialized funcs. 
I have a lot of them myself.

How much too slow is the current SPLIT and in what contexts?


This SPLIT is intended to be general, like ROUND. If you need to 
round something, HELP ROUND gives you all the options, rather than 
having CEIL, FLOOR, TRUNC, etc. There was a long discussion about 
that when it was designed. The goal is to reduce the cognitive overhead. 


If people think this functionality is not helpful, and all we need 
is SPLIT = [first rest], then that's all we need. If so, please give 
it a more precise name.

SPLIT has enough cognitive overhead that I've never understood what 
it was supposed to do, and thus never used it. A sign?

How could this be made clearer then?


Split a series into pieces; fixed or variable size, fixed number, 
or at delimiters

Did you ever look at the docs for it?

http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/functions/split.html

the current SPLIT might be better renamed as Tokenize.

But that might be because I've been mostly writing mezzanine code 
in R3, which doesn't allow the use of functions that complex, even 
though that's where they're implemented. For my user code, SPLIT 
was too confusing for me to remember to use, even when it would have 
been an advantage. As a counterexample, COLLECT also has too much 
overhead to use in mezzanine code, but I use it in user code all 
the time.

Except that it could also rightly be called GROUP, CHUNK, or SEGMENT 
Max.

i.e. you're not looking for token separators in all cases.

SPLIT is a good name to use for something, but using English synonyms 
for alternate splitting functions won't work because developers won't 
remember which English synonym means which REBOL completely different 
function.

I don't follow. How is SPLIT confiusing in that regard?

It could be called SPLIT-SERIES I suppose, but I don't think it helps.

SPLIT isn't, but calling the alternates CHUNK or SEGMENT might be.

YES! Which is why they all got rolled into SPLIT.

They are all special cases of splitting.

Like most developers, I don't read the docs for a function unless 
it is complex enough to need docs, and powerful enough to make it 
worth the time to do so. PARSE is an example of a function that deserves 
docs beyond the doc strings, or maybe the source. SPLIT should be 
more like FIND, understandable without reading a web page. Requiring 
otherwise is a design failure. I couldn't even understand SPLIT's 
rationale from its own source code.

So, you won't read the docs, but you'll read the source. ;-)

Yup, because you can do that from the console, with no internet access.

I would argue that FIND is far more confusing than SPLIT.

It's a good topic: how do we learn what a function does?

FIND is more complex than split, but its options are more understandable 
because it isn't dialected beyond its refinements, so you can read 
its docs with HELP. But note that FIND is so complex that it would 
need to be native for that reason alone, let alone the overhead of 
the actual finding.

Native or mezz implementation is irrelevant.

Hm, I usually don't use a function until I've read the docs, because 
otherwise I'd have no idea how to use it

I usually don't consider whole applications to be finished until 
they can be used without reading the docs, let alone simple functions. 
But that's just me.

I will have to hire you. I often embed docs right on the main screen, 
even for single-screen apps. Maybe I'm thinking different kinds of 
apps though. What sort of apps are you talking about?

Apps usually fail to act like I would expect them to, so I have to 
read the manual to find out the limitations

FIND is more complex than split, but its options are more understandable 
because it isn't dialected beyond its refinements,


I disagree. FINDs refinements interact with each other and change 
the behavior of the function, sometimes in unpredictable ways. SPLIT 
uses the power of datatypes to control behavior, with only one refinement 
as an exception.

Docs in the main screen are part of the app, though if they're too 
complex they can slow down the usage of the app. But my work has 
mostly been business apps. I often will make an app suite rather 
than a single complex app, just to make them easier to use. Every 
hour spent making the app easier to use saves you hundreds of hours 
of training. It's worse for consumer apps with competitors, because 
being too hard to use will lose customers.

Native or mezz implementation is irrelevant in R3, agreed, whichever 
is more efficient. But the rationale of SPLIT's dialect seems confusing, 
particularly as it relates to negative numbers. Any reason keywords 
weren't used instead?

I understand the reasoning, and agree completely. I do app suites 
as well, but the main app is then usually a "control center" with 
built in docs.

The original design used negative numbers to skip backwards. I don't 
think I changed the design, but I understand the reasoning behind 
how they work now. Keywords were probably not used as it would have 
complicated the dialect. Well, it would have made it a dialect which 
is really isn't today.

Carl may have done that. He likes that sort of thing.

This brings up a good point though. Do we consider a function dialected 
if the behavior is controlled by datatypes? SPLIT does have the case 
of a block of integers having more fine-grained control, so there 
is a dialect option there that could easily be expanded.

I have to run, an will be offline for a week. I would LOVE to see 
alternate implementations and designs for comparison. We can talk 
a lot, but if we can compare two options side by side, it often makes 
it easier to say which one you like better, rather than discussing 
costs and benefits in the abstract.

Great chat Brian. Stimulating as always. Thanks!

The non-dialected behaviors seem simple enough (for the purposes 
of discussion I've read the docs). The problem is in the dialect, 
especially these:

- "Negative values can be used to skip in the series without returning 
that part:"  Why not use a 'skip keyword for that?

- "Note that for greater control, you can use simple parse rules:" 
 Which ones?

It really is a dialect, but the language is not confusing (first 
case) and not well defined (second case). Using keywords would make 
the dialect easier to understand (and thus use), and potentially 
more efficient to implement using command dispatch.

is not confusing -> is confusing

There is a conceptual conflict between the treatment of splitting 
into parts by length and splitting by delimiter, that has the effect 
of limiting both sets of behavior. It would be better to put the 
delimiter splitting into a separate function called DELIMIT. This 
would allow the dialected variants of SPLIT and DELIMIT to develop 
separately without conflict, and make the SPLIT dialect easier to 
understand. Then you would have two relatively simple functions with 
a clear distinction between them.

So, You want to split split

Yup. I'll try to mock something up later this week.

BTW doesn't the current  SPLIT have a bug?

>> split "1,2,333,4444,5555" #","
== ["1" "2" "333" "4444" "5555" ""]

Note the last empty string in the result.

Yeah, that's annoying. I vaguely remember finding out that it was 
designed this way