Module talk:String

The wiki supports parser functions like 4 and 1 . Why add this? if there's a reason, should we retrofit existing uses of the parser functions? - Harakoni (Wiki Moderator) (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I probably should have put this on a test page first. The main reason was that earlier testing suggested this to be faster than the parser functions. Because I wanted to be sure, I imported this module to test function by function. Unfortunately, I lack the time to do it in on 1 go. What I have tested since then:

{{#len:string}} is faster than {{#invoke:String|len|target_string}}

{{#pos:string|search term|offset}} is faster than {{#invoke:String|find|source_string|target_string|start_index|plain_flag}}.

String|find always gives #pos:string +1

{{#sub:string|start|length}} is faster than {{#invoke:String|sub|target_string|start_index|end_index}}

The index are of by 1. Again.

{{#count:string|substring}} is faster than {{#invoke:String|count|source_str|pattern_string|plain_flag}}

String|count does accept Ustring patterns, but I'm uncertain of benefit.

{{#invoke:String|join|separator|string1|string2|...}} has no equivalent. Unsure of use case.

{{#replace:string|search term|replacement term}} is faster than {{#invoke:String|replace|source_str|pattern_string|replace_string|replacement_count|plain_flag}}

String|replace has additional options.

String|escapePattern seems to have no equivalent. Maybe #urlencode, but that doesn't work here. Limited utility.

String|rep seems to have no equivalent.

String|endswith is maybe equivalent to yes. That would make endswith faster (barely).

string|match seems to have no equivalent. REGEX is not something I'm good with, so I can't evaluate it right now.

All in all, it seems several parts of thus module have worse performance. The REGEX option may be useful, but I can barely read it. I did not try a scaling test.Arcangelus (talk)