Quote:
Originally Posted by fysiks
This has been reported here but in the context of this being a bug of the original function. I personally agree with this being a bug for this function as opposed to a feature request to be added.
|
I don't know if I would call it a bug, but it certainly is not intuitive. In the example provided by op, I would expect to get -1, not 0.
At this point, the functionality can not be changed(to keep backwards compatibility), but a new argument shoule be added to control how the string is matched.
__________________