Re: jed 0.99-17 looks good

[Paul Boekholt <p.boekholt@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:06:08 -0500, "John E. Davis" <davis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>   I do not believe that anything is wrong with integer.

Well, the documentation for integer() has not changed:

   The `integer' function converts a string representation of an
   integer back to an integer.  If the string does not form a valid
   integer, a type-mismatch error will be generated.

Though this should be a ParseError now as in the my_integer() below.

> I can probably add something like "atoi" that will
> not perform any error checking on its input.

I guess we've been using integer() when we wanted an atoi().  Actually
questions about integer() have been recurring here, last time was in
March - see <C316306FDC7ED511BC2C00D0B789CD9E0122C0BF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Integer() in slang 1 did not raise an error but it did return 16 on
"0x10" and 8 on "010".  That hasn't changed.

While writing this, I'm seeing that my mbox-mode in
http://jedmodes.sf.net/mode/occur is consistently causing a segfault in
0.99.17-49U (that is with slang 2) when used on huge buffers.  It works
fine in 49X (with slang 1).


>   define my_integer (str)
>   {
>      try return integer (str);
>      catch ParseError:
>       return -1;
>   }

--------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to <jed-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx> with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body.
Need help? Email <jed-users-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx>.