Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-taglibs-user-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 10965 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2003 12:06:22 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by 208.185.179.12.available.above.net with SMTP; 21 Jan 2003 12:06:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 20177 invoked by uid 97); 21 Jan 2003 12:07:40 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-taglibs-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 20149 invoked by uid 97); 21 Jan 2003 12:07:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact taglibs-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Tag Libraries Users List" Reply-To: "Tag Libraries Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list taglibs-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 20128 invoked by uid 98); 21 Jan 2003 12:07:38 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 07:06:08 -0500 Subject: Re: forEach Problem Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) From: Timothy Kettering To: "Tag Libraries Users List" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-Spam-Rating: 208.185.179.12.available.above.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: 208.185.179.12.available.above.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Yes, I was the person who started that thread a while ago, and it was indeed a bug with Resin's implementation of JSTL, but when I filed a bug report with Caucho, it was closed a few days later with a "could not replicate bug with current source". Meaning they either fixed it, or its still there and it got past them.. I'm not sure. I have not worked on that project which the bug originated in a while lately, so I havent tested it against Resin 2.1.6 - (which came out after the bug was closed, so I'm assuming would have the fix in). Are you using resin? If you're still having the bug, I can drag my code out of the archives and test my implementation as well. -tim On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 01:46 AM, Shawn Bayern wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Bob Kenyon wrote: > >>> Yes, but if I add 1 to de end it didn't iter only once it iter >>> twice, and to >>>