[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Good idea. empty?'s current functionality is supplied by the word tail? We
> don't lose functionality by modifying the word empty?.
> Another option would be to supply a word really-empty? ;-)
Yup. Something like:
really-empty?: func [s [series!]] [empty? head s]
I think :empty?'s behaviour is understandable: length? tail series
will always return 0. So empty? tail series should return true...
Ciao,
/Gabriele./
o--------------------) .-^-. (----------------------------------o
| Gabriele Santilli / /_/_\_\ \ Amiga Group Italia --- L'Aquila |
| GIESSE on IRC \ \-\_/-/ / http://www.amyresource.it/AGI/ |
o--------------------) `-v-' (----------------------------------o
