Re: Bugzilla Bug 436

2003-01-08 Thread Dekel Tsur
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:24:55PM +, Jos? Matos wrote: > * in version 218 we have: > * in version 220 we have: > * in version 221 we have: > > Is this ok? If yes, I will commit the fix and close the bug. I don't really remember the exact differences between version. The change in get_valu

Re: Bugzilla Bug 436

2003-01-08 Thread José Matos
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 14:46, Dekel Tsur wrote: > > Notice the [1] we are assuming that there are always 2 member. Is it ok > > to test for the presence of the second and if not present to return the > > empty string? > > Yes, I think it would be fine. > > > Closing this bug there aren't

Re: Bugzilla Bug 436

2003-01-08 Thread Dekel Tsur
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 02:40:18PM +, Jos? Matos wrote: > the problem is that get_value always expect to have a value to catch a value > there > > def get_value(lines, token, start, end = 0): > i = find_token2(lines, token, start, end) > if i == -1: > return "" > return s