[erlang-questions] Any reason not to have a string:replace?

David Welton <>
Tue Apr 8 18:29:30 CEST 2014


Because it's convenient to have string:replace that does the simple
thing one expects of it.

> Why not use re:replace/3,4?
>
> http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/re.html#replace-4
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:52 AM, David Welton <>
> wrote:
>>
>> It would be convenient to have something like binary:replace, but for
>> strings.
>>
>> I'd be happy to try to put together a pull request that does this,
>> although I'd likely need some help with the finer points of what
>> options to add.

-- 
David N. Welton

http://www.welton.it/davidw/

http://www.dedasys.com/



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list