Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de> wrote: |Steffen Nurpmeso wrote on Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:45:04AM +0100: |> Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de> wrote: |>> Steffen Nurpmeso wrote on Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 06:09:08PM +0100: | |>>> For S-roff i will add a .substr request which takes an index and | |>> Please don't. That is completely equivalent and trivial to convert |>> in either direction, so it merely bloats the user interface for no | |> Oh yes i will.. starting with a roff macro. | |What a pity. I see you are already working hard to be incompatible |before you have even made your first release. That's not going to |help adoption. That said, i'll probably shut up about similar |issues in the future because, well, a competing package that is |being gratuitiously incompatible is not going to go anywhere, so |commenting on it is likely a waste of time... :-(
Oh come one, please don't. But isn't the problem that .substring is plain broken and that existing use cases would be double-broken if .substring would be fixed? So if i _calculate_ some substring start and length (or for heaven's sake: end index [of course length - 1]) and that turns out as "2" and "2", then my maths say that i want an empty substring -- but this i won't get? Thus: "new game, new luck" (when translating a german saying). --steffen
