findany

Rebol friends, Why won't the following function work? Is there a better way to do this? Is there a native rebol function for this that I have missed? Louis findany: func [ "Searches string x for any substring found in block ys." x [string!] "string" ys [block!] "block of substrings" ] [ foreach y ys [ if find x y [true break] ] ] x: "There is a dog in the barn." ys: ["cat" "pig" "dog" "skunk"] if findany x ys [print "found"]

Ok, this works: findany: func [ "Searches string x for any substring found in block y." x [string!] "string" ys [block!] "block of substrings" ] [ foreach y ys [ either find x y [z: true break] [z: false] ] z ] x: "There is a dog in the barn." ys: ["cat" "pig" "dog" "skunk"] if findany x ys [print "found"] But is there a better way? Louis At 11:09 PM 12/23/2001 -0600, you wrote:

Whoops. There should be an s after the y in "Searches string x for any substring found in block y." That is block ys not block y. Louis At 11:30 PM 12/23/2001 -0600, you wrote:

Hi Louis, Your function didn't do what you expected because BREAK does not return a value by default. You could use the /return refinement on BREAK though to return a TRUE. So you change if find x y [true break] to if find x y [break/return true] An alternative is to use the RETURN keyword instead of break. So you can use this instead: if find x y [return true] These two will work. In the case where the function does not find anything it returns none - which is probably what you want. For me I would probably add a "RETURN none" as the last line in the function to explicitly make this happen but this is a personal preference. HTH! Brett.

On 24-Dec-01, Dr. Louis A. Turk wrote:

> Rebol friends, > Why won't the following function work? Is there a better way to do > ys: ["cat" "pig" "dog" "skunk"] > if findany x ys [print "found"]

Brett and Carl, Many thanks! I remember reading about return now. And I like the idea of returning the position in the string instead of just true. You guys have been helping me a lot lately. Thanks! Louis At 06:51 PM 12/24/2001 +1200, you wrote:

Hi Louis, << And I like the idea of returning the position in the string instead of just true. >> Often times, if you're writing a routine that has a name similar to a built-in function, or is intended to extend the functionality of a built-in somehow, it's a good idea to model your behavior on the original (even if you don't agree with its design :). It makes it much easier for people, including yourself, to use your routine. If you want different behavior, choose a distinct name. In your current example, you might use a word like 'contains? or 'contains-any? which naturally return a yes/no (boolean) answer. --Gregg