Didn't want to hardcode part of the output, that's why I tried this. But you are fully right. Empty output shouldn't display anything in the first place. I'll send the hardcoded parts as an argument to the function. Then I can discard it within the function if the actual output would be empty. Thanks for making me think!
PS: Your solution worked. On Mar 8, 2:02 am, The Editor <[email protected]> wrote: > This doesn't really make much sense, because if the output is empty, > it shouldn't display anything anyway. But I could see a case where > theoretically the output of one function is used to determine whether > or not another function is called. In that case make sure you do it > like this: > > [if set {(func1)}]<(func2)>[if] > > func 1 can be {( )} or [( )], but it can't be <( )>, because it is > processed after the conditionals, and thus will always appear to be > set. func2 can be any of the three, but it should be <( )> so BoltWire > doesn't even run the function. If func2 is {( )} or [( )], the > function will be run but not displayed when the conditional fails. > Timing is everything here... > > Cheers, > Dan > > > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Markus <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is there a way to display the output of a function call only if it is > > not empty? I am thinking of something like this: > > > [if set <(references)>][(references)] > > > Regards, > > Markus > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "BoltWire" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/boltwire?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BoltWire" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/boltwire?hl=en.
