Siemova wrote:
On Jan 23, 2008 10:54 AM, David Walbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
It's not that simple -- the last line should be
start = 1 + ( (number of items - 1) * step)
if it's assumed that the last item of the list is numbered one by
default.
Alas, we see the ill effects of my hastiness today! I stand happily
corrected. In that case, it's even simpler:
if start is not specified
start = 1
if reverse
start += (number of items - 1) * step
The problem that Jonas originally pointed out is that, given browsers do
incremental rendering "number of items" is not a known quantity when the list is
first rendered. For a pathological example of why this is a problem, imagine a
cgi script that just kept spewing out reverse numbered list items, one per
second, indefinitely.
It may be that in practice lists are short enough that they are typically
rendered all in one go so this wouldn't be a problem. I don't think that's
obvious, however.
--
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
-- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
