Skip to content

Conversation

@djr7C4
Copy link

@djr7C4 djr7C4 commented Jan 7, 2020

This makes the code and the tutorial consistent. Moreover, using a value of nil
for remove-empty-subseqs as rarely useful (as noted in the tutorial). This fixes #44.

djr7C4 added 3 commits January 6, 2020 20:25
This makes the code and the tutorial consistent.  Moreover, using a value of nil
for remove-empty-subseqs as rarely useful (as noted in the tutorial).
@vseloved
Copy link
Owner

Sorry, I have put it aside to think about potentially broken backward compatibility. I still continue this thinking :(
I agree that t is a more reasonable choice, but I'm afraid that the change will surely break someone's code. That's how it always happens. So, I'll add the change in the next major version update. 🤷‍♂️

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

remove-empty-subseqs defaults to nil in split*

2 participants