[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: string-match bug?
From: |
tomas |
Subject: |
Re: string-match bug? |
Date: |
Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:13:24 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 10:07:56AM -0800, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Andreas Röhler
> <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> wrote:
> > But simply by convention, isn't it?
>
> No. It's because it's consistent and makes sense. That's why every
> sane programming language does it this way:
Ah, nice: our postings crossed :)
But I think it_is_ a convention -- just the one which makes most sense.
Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLH+jEBcgs9XrR2kYRApjFAJ9llWu4/ms+EymRkIKO50SmfF8cVQCeIVIH
6RWS0RoHmC9aKYnNxYjJT1s=
=u8dn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Re: string-match bug?, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: string-match bug?, Barry Margolin, 2009/12/08
- Re: string-match bug?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2009/12/08
- Re: string-match bug?, Stefan Monnier, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, Matthew Dempsky, 2009/12/08
- Re: string-match bug?, Andreas Röhler, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, Juanma Barranquero, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, Andreas Röhler, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, Matthew Dempsky, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?,
tomas <=
- Re: string-match bug?, Andreas Röhler, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, Matthew Dempsky, 2009/12/09
- Message not available
- Re: string-match bug?, Barry Margolin, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, tomas, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, Kevin Rodgers, 2009/12/09
- Message not available
- Re: string-match bug?, Stefan Monnier, 2009/12/10
- Re: string-match bug?, tomas, 2009/12/10
- Re: string-match bug?, Andreas Politz, 2009/12/10
- Re: string-match bug?, Kevin Rodgers, 2009/12/10
- Message not available
- Re: string-match bug?, David Kastrup, 2009/12/14