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

David Welton davidnwelton@REDACTED
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 <davidnwelton@REDACTED>
> 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



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list