From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nick Roberts Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: split-string behavior change Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:27:08 +1300 Message-ID: <18370.6508.301118.933654@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> References: <003c01c8774b$48ab7d70$0600a8c0@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1203903981 28798 80.91.229.12 (25 Feb 2008 01:46:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:46:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs-Devel To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 25 02:46:45 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JTSQW-00030q-GK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:46:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JTSQ0-0006fz-S5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:46:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JTSPv-0006fh-PQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:46:07 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JTSPu-0006fI-D5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:46:07 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JTSPu-0006fF-6p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:46:06 -0500 Original-Received: from viper.snap.net.nz ([202.37.101.8]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JTSPt-0007IZ-GJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:46:05 -0500 Original-Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (8.31.255.123.static.snap.net.nz [123.255.31.8]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B0D3D9F46; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:27:13 +1300 (NZDT) Original-Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6D5378FC6D; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:27:09 +1300 (NZDT) In-Reply-To: <003c01c8774b$48ab7d70$0600a8c0@us.oracle.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.1.91.1 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:90328 Archived-At: > IOW, we added an optional third arg, for which the non-nil value - not the > nil value, gives the same result as before. And using the same code as > before, with no third arg, now gives a different result (breaks). > > That seems backward, to me. Why wasn't the polarity of the new OMIT-NULLS > arg reversed (and so called INCLUDE-NULLS)? > > If this change was a mistake, so be it. But if it was conscious decision and > not a mistake, then I'm curious to know the reason for it. Have you looked at the archives or tried googling with split-string and omit-nulls? The latter gives me http://osdir.com/ml/emacs.xemacs.design/2003-04/msg00142.html -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob