On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote: > In the current draft, symbols() function accepts 'numeric' and 'alphabetic' > as type, but the requirement of minimum number of symbols is not mentioned. > > I suggest that a note should be added to symbols() section to clarify the > behavior when number of symbols provided is not sufficient. Good catch, I've made the symbols() function invalid in that case. ~TJReceived on Monday, 14 April 2014 22:30:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:39 UTC