On Thursday 19 January 2006 11:03, Plüm, Rüdiger, VIS wrote: > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Nick Kew > > [..cut..] > > > That's the same bug and fix as PR#37790! > > > > Which leads me to wonder, is there some good reason not to > > insert the input filter unconditionally somewhere earlier in > > request_post_read? As it stands, it looks as if your fix has > > the same problem as mine: namely, it fixes the immediate > > problem but leaves the bug waiting to manifest itself anew in > > other early error conditions. > > What about the following patch instead (currently untested)?
That's just about what I had in mind. But I'd hesitate to use it without knowing whether someone had a reason for putting it at the end of the function originally. It would affect the semantics of post_read_request, but is that fixing a bug or damaging a feature? Anyone recollect the origins of that code? -- Nick Kew
