1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

echo %@index[1234,.,-1] return -21 in new version

Discussion in 'Support' started by MartinRichter, Mar 3, 2011.

  1. MartinRichter

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi!

    The new Version 12.1 seems to have a bug.
    If I execute
    echo %@index[1234,.,-1]

    I receive the result-21!

    How that?
     
  2. Steve Fabian

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,523
    Likes Received:
    4
    ---- Original Message ----
    From: MartinRichter
    To: ESFabian@zenge.org
    Sent: Thursday, 2011. March 3. 07:48
    Subject: [Support-t-2646] echo %@index[1234,.,-1] return -21 in new
    version

    | Hi!
    |
    | The new Version 12.1 seems to have a bug.
    | If I execute
    | echo %@index[1234,.,-1]
    |
    | I receive the result-21!
    |
    | How that?

    The result I see in the latest builds for V9, V10, V11 and V12 is the correct, indicating in accordance with the documentation that it did not find the period "." character in the string "1234": -1.

    Do you possibly have an @INDEX function defined in a plugin, or by the FUNCTION command? Either one would return its own result instead of that of the built-in function!
    --
    Steve
     
  3. MartinRichter

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    The code were I used it is a batch file that is 4 or 5 years old and unchanged.

    Totally strange. I repaired the installation and now I have the correct result.

    I am sure that I didn't have any plugin or function here.

    OK, fixed but reason unknown... :-(
     
  4. Steve Fabian

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,523
    Likes Received:
    4
    ---- Original Message ----
    From: MartinRichter
    ...
    | I repaired the installation and now I have the correct result.
    |
    | I am sure that I didn't have any plugin or function here.
    |
    | OK, fixed but reason unknown... :-(

    I'd say the reason was a damaged program file (probably takecmd.dll), else "repair" would not have corrected the result.
    --
    Steve
     

Share This Page