[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?
From: |
Kieren MacMillan |
Subject: |
Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature? |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 04:53:25 -0500 |
Hi Werner,
> what will you do with, say, 100 \addAt entries after inserting an additional
> bar?
A replace script?
In any case, since it would be an optional parameter, it wouldn’t hurt anyone
to have it in there…
As long as the syntax is clear and easy as to what is and is not a “mark” for
the purposes of this "relative mark" system, no harm done.
Cheers,
Kieren.
Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?, Kieren MacMillan, 2014/01/14
- Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?, David Kastrup, 2014/01/15
- Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?, Kieren MacMillan, 2014/01/15
- Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?, David Kastrup, 2014/01/15
- Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?, Werner LEMBERG, 2014/01/15
- Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?, David Kastrup, 2014/01/15
- Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?, David Kastrup, 2014/01/24