LPP> Is there any sense behind this result? Are NIL values somehow LPP> special to the secondary indexing mechanism?
it is somehow special in map-index, and inherently in GET-INSTANCES-BY-RANGE -- if start is NIL it starts from beginning, it end is NIL it iterates to the end, so (NIL, NIL) range should mean all the sequence. behaviour you're observing is wrong, i guess. LPP> How should I find the missing instances with LPP> GET-INSTANCES-BY-RANGE? question is _why_ should you use GET-INSTANCES-BY-RANGE when you can do this via GET-INSTANCES-BY-VALUE? _______________________________________________ elephant-devel site list elephant-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
