Bug(?) with gettoken(...,'count',...)

[PeterH]

gettoken('\\NAS\share', 4, '\') returns 'share' - that's expected.
gettoken('\\NAS\share', 'count', '\') returns 2! It ignores the first empty tokens!

For me this is very strange, I think 'count' should return 4, including the empty tokens.
In other words: the count of tokens is 4; the count of tokens with a value is 2.

My problem: I (often!) need the real = full count of tokens for tokenlists!
And my string can be like '\\NAS\share', or like 'd:\xy'. Hard to handle.
Used for a report(), then needed to interpret the result. Each single line...

[jupe]

I'm not in front of a PC at the moment, but I am pretty sure that gpc can get a component count that might be better to use when you are dealing solely with paths.

[highend]

This has always? been the case that leading and trailing empty tokens were cut off.
This will lead to many "broken" scripts if this will be changed...

[PeterH]

@jupe Thanks! Your tip is just the way for me to go!
Seems over the years I forgot about GPC and so used GetToken.

@highend @Don At least there is one - either in the function or the documentation!
There are 3 counts that could be asked for:
count of [all] tokens
count of empty tokens
count of non-empty tokens
I'm convinced that expected for 'count' is 'all'!
If it's not meant this way, it at least must be documented, best in bold and underlined.
And better: also add 3 new codewords: cnt, cnte, cntne (cnt could be cnta) for the 3 options.
If not: at least add cnta or countall - I'm convinced that is what's needed/used most.

And for people still using it for paths, a tip at the begin of gettoken()-doku:
For use on PATHs: use GPC()

[admin]

Agreed. I will add countall.

[PeterH]

[admin]

Decided to do it via the flags arg. Just a detail.

[PeterH]

A bit a matter of 'taste'...

I'd think: if I want count and can just select between 'count' and 'countall', it's a "direct" solution.
If I'd want count/all, and I have to select 'count' and also a flag - I'd think it's not so fine / intuitive.

The problem is that nowadays nobody has reason to expect the current way 'count' works - I think it's pure history from before we hat GPC?

[admin]

I agree, but I cannot change it without breaking old code.