On Monday 29 April 2013 02:55:12 Peter Rosin wrote: > 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?
so it does ... i was focusing on the code outside of the inner loop. why do we need the restore at the bottom then ? -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
