The new wording is not correct; for example, compare &total [&a=b] [&b=c] outputs 0, as is described by the current wording.
As I explained in the user group, cases like compare &total a b (both arguments being strings) are covered by a clause before, and the reader would only think it outputs 0 if they don't read from top to bottom. It probably makes sense to make the outline of the algorithm a bit more explicit by using an ordered list though. 62795d907d99d5bf6100a68ea8466bdb7811426f did this.
fbde7b12080cea8349bb527539252f4dc7eabd61 fixed the &total option for order.
The new wording is not correct; for example,
compare &total [&a=b] [&b=c]outputs 0, as is described by the current wording.As I explained in the user group, cases like
compare &total a b(both arguments being strings) are covered by a clause before, and the reader would only think it outputs 0 if they don't read from top to bottom. It probably makes sense to make the outline of the algorithm a bit more explicit by using an ordered list though. 62795d907d99d5bf6100a68ea8466bdb7811426f did this.fbde7b12080cea8349bb527539252f4dc7eabd61 fixed the
&totaloption fororder.