Re: split-string behavior change

[Nick Roberts]

 > IOW, we added an optional third arg, for which the non-nil value - not the
 > nil value, gives the same result as before. And using the same code as
 > before, with no third arg, now gives a different result (breaks).
 > 
 > That seems backward, to me. Why wasn't the polarity of the new OMIT-NULLS
 > arg reversed (and so called INCLUDE-NULLS)?
 >
 > If this change was a mistake, so be it. But if it was conscious decision and
 > not a mistake, then I'm curious to know the reason for it.

Have you looked at the archives or tried googling with split-string and
omit-nulls?

The latter gives me

http://osdir.com/ml/emacs.xemacs.design/2003-04/msg00142.html

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob