Hi Jon,
> I added the 'g' to make it clear that 'sub?' doesn’t only check the
> tail, like offset does. If you insist on leaving the 'g' out, you must
> at least adjust the results accordingly. ;-)
Oops :) OK, then I better add the 'g' everywhere.
♪♫ Alex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@softwar
Hi Alex,
I added the 'g' to make it clear that 'sub?' doesn’t only check the tail, like
offset does. If you insist on leaving the 'g' out, you must at least adjust the
results accordingly. ;-)
/Jon
On 14. Nov, 2014, at 07:42, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
>> From what I can see at cod
Hi Jon,
> From what I can see at code.google.com, you missed the last 'g' in
> both of my expressions.
Why is the 'g' important? I omitted it on purpose, to keep the new
examples ananlog to the old ones above them.
> And also I think you forgot the additions
> ('sub?') I suggested to the "See al
From: picolisp@software-lab.de on behalf of
Alexander Burger
Sent: 13 November 2014 19:12
To: picolisp@software-lab.de
Subject: Re: Possible sub? ref. improvements
Hi Jon,
> : (sub? "def" '(a b c d e f g))
> -> "abcdefg"
> : (sub? '(d e f) &
Hi Jon,
> : (sub? "def" '(a b c d e f g))
> -> "abcdefg"
> : (sub? '(d e f) "abcdefg")
> -> "abcdefg"
>
> - and that the "See also" includes 'offset' and 'index'. I also think
> that the "See also" for 'offset' and 'index' should include 'sub?'.
Thanks! I added this.
Consequently, I also di
Hi,
I suggest that the doc/refS.html#sub? adds these two examples:
: (sub? "def" '(a b c d e f g))
-> "abcdefg"
: (sub? '(d e f) "abcdefg")
-> "abcdefg"
- and that the "See also" includes 'offset' and 'index'. I also think that the
"See also" for 'offset' and 'index' should include 'sub?'.
