[stringtemplate-interest] The length of things

[Terence Parr]

On May 10, 2005, at 3:21 PM, Tom Bentley wrote:
>> For size, it  would be convenient to answer size of array but also  
>> size of string.
>>
>
> Getting the length of Strings and the size of Collections does end  
> up being the next logical step on this slippery slope.

True. :)

> The difference with arrays is that length is supposedly a public  
> final field of an array, so it should work in theory (shouldn't it?).

I guess you're right.

> The String and Collection lengths are certainly 'nice to have', but  
> would need a different StringTemplate to the one we have now in  
> order to work.
>
>> The problem is that it's ambiguous.  it would also be yet another   
>> place where a type would have to be assumed to resolve the   
>> ambiguity.  But, I'm not ncessarily totally opposed.
>>
>
> FWIW, I think getting the length of an array is a must.

To be consistent, I'd have to do it for any iteratable thingie.

> Support for accessing length() and an isEmpty()-like predicate on  
> String and size()/isEmpty() on java.util.Collection and  
> java.util.Map would also be useful.

Well, you test foo.isEmpty by $if(foo)$; zero length things now test  
as not there (next release).

> I think you need to include special cases for the Collection  
> framework because of its ubiquity.

Yup.

> How would this look in Python though?

Good question.  I'm CC'ing Marq.  Heh, Marq are you a member of this  
list?

Ter
--
CS Professor & Grad Director, University of San Francisco
Creator, ANTLR Parser Generator, http://www.antlr.org
Cofounder, http://www.jguru.com