Re: bug in exists()
- Thus wrote Benji Fisher (benji@...) on :
> c928400@... wrote:My bad, I did mean :command's indeed. Sorry for any confusion.
> > Sounds like a good idea to me. Otherwise a check for a specific
> > function is nearly impossible (off my head, I would think that
> > redirecting ":com ..." to a variable might be the only way)
> I think it is only an issue for commands, not functions. I agree
> that returning 2 would work. I want some way to check for :Foo without
> being confused by :FooBar.
"Before you criticize someone, walk
Preben "Peppe" Guldberg __/-\__ a mile in his shoes. That way, if
c928400@... (o o) he gets angry, he'll be a mile away
----------------------oOOo (_) oOOo-- - and barefoot." --Sarah Jackson