Nikolai,
On 10/21/08, Nikolai Weibull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has remove() always thrown an error if idx is beyond the end of list?
Either way, what's the reasoning behind it doing so? If the items
aren't there to begin with, then great, that's precisely what I want.
Ignoring the
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 13:19, Doug Kearns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/21/08, Nikolai Weibull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has remove() always thrown an error if idx is beyond the end of list?
Either way, what's the reasoning behind it doing so? If the items
aren't there to begin with,
On 22/10/08 13:57, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
[...] I really dislike this tendency
computers have to not adhering to the mantra do as I mean, not as I
say.[...]
Well, nothing irks me more than when a stupid program tries to
second-guess me and does something else than what I told it, on the
On 22/10/08 16:25, James Vega wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 03:54:23PM +0200, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 15:16, Tony Mechelynck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22/10/08 13:57, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
[...] I really dislike this tendency
computers have to not adhering to
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:06:55PM +0200, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 22/10/08 16:25, James Vega wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 03:54:23PM +0200, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 15:16, Tony Mechelynck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22/10/08 13:57, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 16:25, James Vega [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 03:54:23PM +0200, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
If I say remove(list, 8, -1) I expect it
to give me a list of the first 8 elements in list.
This is odd since, as pointed out earlier, Bram modelled the List
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 17:06, Tony Mechelynck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has everything to do with syntax.
What you're talking about is semantics. There's a difference.
The documented syntax (at :help remove()) says if {end} is before {idx}
it's an error.
(Blurb condensed to the fact
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 03:54:23PM +0200, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 15:16, Tony Mechelynck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22/10/08 13:57, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
[...] I really dislike this tendency
computers have to not adhering to the mantra do as I mean, not as I
Has remove() always thrown an error if idx is beyond the end of list?
Either way, what's the reasoning behind it doing so? If the items
aren't there to begin with, then great, that's precisely what I want.
The documentation should be updated to reflect this state of affairs.
Here's a patch:
On 21/10/08 13:53, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
Has remove() always thrown an error if idx is beyond the end of list?
Either way, what's the reasoning behind it doing so? If the items
aren't there to begin with, then great, that's precisely what I want.
The documentation should be updated to
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 21/10/08 13:53, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
Here's a patch:
Please apply your patches to the latest version of the file. In eval.txt
dated 2008 Sep 14, line, 4482 to 4489 are
...
within the help for remote_send(); IOW your pointer is 14
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 22:29, Tony Mechelynck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21/10/08 13:53, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
Has remove() always thrown an error if idx is beyond the end of list?
Either way, what's the reasoning behind it doing so? If the items
aren't there to begin with, then great,
On 21/10/08 23:49, Matt Wozniski wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 21/10/08 13:53, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
Here's a patch:
Please apply your patches to the latest version of the file. In eval.txt
dated 2008 Sep 14, line, 4482 to 4489 are
...
within the help
13 matches
Mail list logo
