You mean like this?Even though you can't represent the list of one empty item with itemSeparator as posed?
Code: Select all
put the number of items in ""
And yes, it's a bit of a conundrum, but that's the current situation.
Moderators: FourthWorld, heatherlaine, Klaus, kevinmiller, LCMark
You mean like this?Even though you can't represent the list of one empty item with itemSeparator as posed?
Code: Select all
put the number of items in ""
So, "" is zero items, and "," is two items. What's one item?mwieder wrote:@runrevmark-You mean like this?Even though you can't represent the list of one empty item with itemSeparator as posed?That's 0 now, and it stays 0 no matter whether you set the itemdelimiter or itemseparator.Code: Select all
put the number of items in ""
And yes, it's a bit of a conundrum, but that's the current situation.
Code: Select all
put the number of items in "hello"
Code: Select all
on mouseUp
local tTest
put empty into item 2 of tTest
put the number of items of tTest -- puts 1
end mouseUp
Yes, that's it exactly.This is exactly what you mean, isn't it?
Just to be pedantic about it, it is certainly possible.(T&D is in S) or (S ends with T) is an exclusive 'or', because both is not possible.
I'm not saying that's how things should be, I'm describing the current situation, whereBut you say "," has 1 item.
Code: Select all
put the number of items of "," -- results in 1
Yes. Yes, exactly. We now have good descriptions of both the current and proposed situations and some idea of the advantages and disadvantages of each.We are close together, but you were arguing sometimes for the current situation, or more exactly, searching arguments for it.
Well, it is pedantic in the sense that it's a bit of a side issue from the main body of your argument and doesn't affect any other part. The conclusions still hold and removing that line has no effect.This is not pedantic, you are simply right.