Roberto E. Vargas Caballero <k...@shike2.com> wrote: > If you agree with this small difference I will commit your change.
I don't mind. Martti Kühne <mysat...@gmail.com> wrote: > logically, wouldn't that be > > if(y < sel.ne.y && (x == 0 || !((gp-1)->mode & ATTR_WRAP))) > > ? > > I think the outcome for x==0 would be different in your suggestion. Logically, it wouldn't be the same. In your case, "*ptr++ = '\n';" will be executed, regardless whether !((gp-1)->mode & ATTR_WRAP)) holds true or not (assuming x == 0). Whereas in Roberto's case, the if condition never holds true for x == 0. So as you mentioned, the outcome for x == 0 is different. It is to decide which one is the correct behaviour. As I my mentioned, a quick test of my fix (which should be logically equivalent to Roberto's fix) showed no problems, but then again, it was just a quick test. Best regards Maurice Quennet
