UPDATE (Nov 24th, 2015):
This answer is originally posted in the year 2010 (SIX years back.) so please take note of these insightful comments:
Update for Googlers - Looks like ECMA6 adds this function. The MDN article also shows a polyfill. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/String/endsWith
Creating substrings isn't expensive on modern browsers; it may well have been in 2010 when this answer was posted. These days, the simple this.substr(-suffix.length) === suffix
approach is fastest on Chrome, the same on IE11 as indexOf, and only 4% slower (fergetaboutit territory) on Firefox: jsperf.com/endswith-stackoverflow/14 And faster across the board when the result is false: jsperf.com/endswith-stackoverflow-when-false Of course, with ES6 adding endsWith, the point is moot. :-)
ORIGINAL ANSWER:
I know this is a year old question... but I need this too and I need it to work cross-browser so... combining everyone's answer and comments and simplifying it a bit:
String.prototype.endsWith = function(suffix) {
return this.indexOf(suffix, this.length - suffix.length) !== -1;
};
- Doesn't create a substring
- Uses native
indexOf
function for fastest results
- Skip unnecessary comparisons using the second parameter of
indexOf
to skip ahead
- Works in Internet Explorer
- NO Regex complications
Also, if you don't like stuffing things in native data structure's prototypes, here's a standalone version:
function endsWith(str, suffix) {
return str.indexOf(suffix, str.length - suffix.length) !== -1;
}
EDIT: As noted by @hamish in the comments, if you want to err on the safe side and check if an implementation has already been provided, you can just adds a typeof
check like so:
if (typeof String.prototype.endsWith !== 'function') {
String.prototype.endsWith = function(suffix) {
return this.indexOf(suffix, this.length - suffix.length) !== -1;
};
}
Contrary to the answers here, you DON'T need to worry about encoding if the bytes don't need to be interpreted!
Like you mentioned, your goal is, simply, to "get what bytes the string has been stored in".
(And, of course, to be able to re-construct the string from the bytes.)
For those goals, I honestly do not understand why people keep telling you that you need the encodings. You certainly do NOT need to worry about encodings for this.
Just do this instead:
static byte[] GetBytes(string str)
{
byte[] bytes = new byte[str.Length * sizeof(char)];
System.Buffer.BlockCopy(str.ToCharArray(), 0, bytes, 0, bytes.Length);
return bytes;
}
// Do NOT use on arbitrary bytes; only use on GetBytes's output on the SAME system
static string GetString(byte[] bytes)
{
char[] chars = new char[bytes.Length / sizeof(char)];
System.Buffer.BlockCopy(bytes, 0, chars, 0, bytes.Length);
return new string(chars);
}
As long as your program (or other programs) don't try to interpret the bytes somehow, which you obviously didn't mention you intend to do, then there is nothing wrong with this approach! Worrying about encodings just makes your life more complicated for no real reason.
Additional benefit to this approach: It doesn't matter if the string contains invalid characters, because you can still get the data and reconstruct the original string anyway!
It will be encoded and decoded just the same, because you are just looking at the bytes.
If you used a specific encoding, though, it would've given you trouble with encoding/decoding invalid characters.
Best Answer
How about mkString ?
A variant exists in which you can specify a prefix and suffix too.
See here for an implementation using foldLeft, which is much more verbose, but perhaps worth looking at for education's sake.