On May 26, 2006, at 10:21 PM, David Vaughan wrote:
On 27/05/2006, at 12:30, Kay C Lan wrote:
...
...BUT once you move
away from these, moving back to them using 'previous' or 'next'
will not
result in them be recognised, you need to try an move past them, then
they'll be recognised.
I recognise it but it leaves me thinking that the old names
"revdb_isbof" and "revdb_iseof" were more accurate descriptors than
the new synonyms"revCurrentRecordIsFirst" or
"revCurrentRecordIsLast". They could be changed to
"revNoPreviousRecord" and "revNoNextRecord" when they would fit
their dictionary descriptions. I will BugZilla it but somehow I do
not see this piece of documentation semantics hitting a high on
their ToDo list. It will just have to be rediscovered by new users
as they reach it.
OTOH, documentation errors are easy to fix. I recently stumbled
across a minor doco error in one of the revDB functions and submitted
it to BZ. Lo and behold it showed up as fixed in the next 2.7.x
release. You should submit it for sure. I would even vote for it
because I've run into this before and was puzzled until I figured out
what was going on.
Devin
Devin Asay
Humanities Technology and Research Support Center
Brigham Young University
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
