mudlet-makers team mailing list archive

[Chris <1261536@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's not pretty but I think it's a consistent and user intuitive way to
handle all existing cases.
On Dec 16, 2013 9:37 PM, "Vadim Peretokin" <vperetokin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Not clean but it'll work and stop forcing the for i = 0 into code. I
> approve.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to Mudlet.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1261536
>
> Title:
>   getExitStubs() returns the room ID instead of nil when there are no
>   stubs
>
> Status in Mudlet the MUD client:
>   Confirmed
>
> Bug description:
>   getExitStubs() returns the room ID instead of nil when there are no
>   stubs . See
>   http://forums.mudlet.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4272&p=19841#p19840. This
>   is just non-sensical and makes it difficult to work with as the code
>   that this design forces isn't obvious (why would someone be checking
>   for a number and not just nil for the lack of stubs?)
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/mudlet/+bug/1261536/+subscriptions
>

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mudlet
Makers, which is subscribed to Mudlet.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1261536

Title:
  getExitStubs() returns the room ID instead of nil when there are no
  stubs

Status in Mudlet the MUD client:
  Confirmed

Bug description:
  getExitStubs() returns the room ID instead of nil when there are no
  stubs . See
  http://forums.mudlet.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4272&p=19841#p19840. This
  is just non-sensical and makes it difficult to work with as the code
  that this design forces isn't obvious (why would someone be checking
  for a number and not just nil for the lack of stubs?)

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/mudlet/+bug/1261536/+subscriptions