On 2013-04-29 04:45, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 28 April 2013 03:21:15 Peter Rosin wrote: >> And on re-reading, my IFS changes are not very constructive. I removed >> those. I will push the attached in a couple of days, if there are no >> objections. > > i actually thought your IFS changes made sense. the current code > saves/restores IFS around the inside loop, so if your code breaks out of both > the inside and outside loop, then IFS won't get restored.
The first statement of the inner loop restores IFS, so IFS is as it should be when "break 2" hits, no? Cheers, Peter
