@Mr.Xcoder Very nice! That was the exact same solution I had

@Adnan .± (short for 0.S) isn't implemented yet?

@Adnan There seems to be a bug in the split in the new version: '.¡ with an input ['1.0.1.1.0','1.00.2.0'] results in [[[49,46,48,46,49,46,49,46,48],[49,46,48,48,46,50,46,48]]].. Try it online.

Similar problem with ζ and input [['1','0','1','1','0'],['1','00','2','0']] resulting in [[[49],[49]],[[48],[48,48]],[[49],[50]],[[49],[48]],[[48]," "]]. Try it online.

@KevinCruijssen That's not a bug. You should for now always surround strings in double quotes ", because Elixir automatically converts '-strings to ASCII char codes

@Mr.Xcoder Ah of course, Adnan mentioned that before.. Thanks, will try my code again in the new version. :)

Hmm, the split still doesn't work as intended with an array of items as input, though. Try it online.

It doesn't do the implicit map anymore. ε'.¡} does work, so the issue is not in the split itself, but more in the implicit mapping in general

@Mr.Xcoder Brilliant showcase of the λ function, thanks !

@KevinCruijssen I think that may be intenteded. The old behaviour for comparison. I think that for split in particular, vectorization should be disabled: 1) because there's no way for us to disable it / it is much harder to do so for lists, while 2) it is now trivial

@Mr.Xcoder Hmm, I personally liked the old behavior better tbh.. Not sure when I'd ever want to use it in its new behavior.

My message seems to have been truncated by SE for some reason. I wanted to say it is now trivial to recreate the old behaviour using δ

@KevinCruijssen I'm pretty sure it's working, since the tests pass for that command

Perhaps you used the legacy version instead of the new version?

@Adnan Hmm weird. It's indeed working now. Could have sworn I've used the new version on TIO, but I'm probably mistaken, since it is working properly..

.± is missing from the commands on the Wiki though @Mr.Xcoder

(I just tag your @Mr.Xcoder because you are currently mainly focusing on the wiki. ;) Don't feel obliged or anything. I can also edit it myself when I have some more time, or @Adnan can do it.)

@KevinCruijssen status-completed

@KevinCruijssen No problem, I'm more than happy to fix the docs

@Adnan Hmm, ü has the pairs in reversed order now? For example, the program ü) with an input of [12,0,7,7,3] results in [[12,0],[0,7],[7,7],[7,3]] in the legacy, but results in [[0,12],[7,0],[7,7],[3,7]] in the new version.

This seems to give some incorrect results when I run this code I just posted in the new version.

Adding ®* after the .S does result in the correct output in the new version.

@KevinCruijssen Oh, that is indeed not intended

I'll see what I can do tomorrow