Hi Jeff,
On 2/25/16 5:00 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> But, It doesn't sound like I am going to win that debate. Given that,
> I don't think we need a different name for the function. I'm fine with
> explaining the word-boundary subtlety in the documentation, and
> keeping the function name itself simple.
It's not clear to me if you are requesting more documentation here or
stating that you are happy with it as-is. Care to elaborate?
Other than that I think this patch looks to be ready for committer. Any
objections?
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net