In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:35 AM 11/11/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>
> >No, it isn't. I'm not sure s->strlen is always gaurnteed to be correct;
> >string_length(s) is. (I found a case where it was wrong when coding my
> >version
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 12:05:04PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Will. Docs, darn it! Must have docs! Tests, too, but if you have docs you
> can rope someone into writing the tests and the lot of 'ya can submit a
> chunk of patches. :)
And if you have docs and tests, you might be able to convinc
At 03:35 AM 11/11/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Alex Gough wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Alex Gough wrote:
> > > ook, cool, but string_length returns an INTVAL, not an int.
> > Remember that people who say "negative" usually mean "positive", they
> > just don't know it y
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Alex Gough wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Alex Gough wrote:
> > ook, cool, but string_length returns an INTVAL, not an int.
> Remember that people who say "negative" usually mean "positive", they
> just don't know it yet. Always look on the bright si-ide of life, de
> do, de d
