Stefan Tiedje

When answering for the request of a subsym for numbers regarding coll I

came across this oddity, it might be a bug:

To make it work it needed a second deferlow, without it, it would put in

When answering for the request of a subsym for numbers regarding coll I
came across this oddity, it might be a bug:
To make it work it needed a second deferlow, without it, it would put in
a wrong number, don't know why...
Just wanted to point to it...

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com

is-it-a-bug-with-coll

I don't think it's a bug of coll, it seems to be a problem while 

using deferlow. I don't see any reason why deferlow is required, 

I don't think it's a bug of coll, it seems to be a problem while  
using deferlow. I don't see any reason why deferlow is required,  
trigger is enough.

> I don't think it's a bug of coll, it seems to be a problem while using 

> deferlow. I don't see any reason why deferlow is required, trigger is 

Yes, your patch is clearer and works, but still I don't know why my 

version without the second deferlow would create 5 instead of 6, that 

was my concern, there was no value 5 incolved at all...

Emmanuel Jourdan wrote:
> I don't think it's a bug of coll, it seems to be a problem while  using 
> deferlow. I don't see any reason why deferlow is required,  trigger is 
> enough.

Yes, your patch is clearer and works, but still I don't know why my 
version without the second deferlow would create 5 instead of 6, that 
was my concern, there was no value 5 incolved at all...

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com


On 14 juin 06, at 07:05, Stefan Tiedje wrote:

> Yes, your patch is clearer and works, but still I don't know why my 

> version without the second deferlow would create 5 instead of 6, 

> that was my concern, there was no value 5 incolved at all...

Right, didn't see that. Does anyone have any idea where this 5 comes 

> Yes, your patch is clearer and works, but still I don't know why my  
> version without the second deferlow would create 5 instead of 6,  
> that was my concern, there was no value 5 incolved at all...

Right, didn't see that. Does anyone have any idea where this 5 comes  
from?

Is it a bug with coll?