Georg Baum wrote: > If you do > > if (cur.pit() > cur.lastpit()) > cur.pit() = cur.lastpit(); > > then it is even suitable for 1.4.3 IMHO. I am not sure whether the test is > necessary, but cur.pit() > cur.lastpit() is clearly wrong.
Yes. I'm not sure we need the test, but it cannot harm (also for cur.pos() > cur.lastpos() then, though). > I would not use fixIfBroken, I always understood that it is an additonal > safety measure. In this case we know that we might have invalidated the > cursor. OK. Joost, could you prepare such a patch, please? As said, my tree is too dirty ATM. Jürgen
