On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 12:15:26PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > Yes, one is V1 and the other is V2. Is it hard to understand V2 is to > replace V1?
Well, looking at these two very different fixes, it made me think that you don't really know what you're doing. So I went and did the Knuth's version just so that I can analyze and understand the issue myself. The final result ended up needing *both* the index fix *and* removed the trailing noodling code after the loop which looked fishy at best and I wanted it gone anyway. So in the end: 1. your first fix was correct but incomplete 2. your second was replaced by a better version of the whole thing So the final result is a lot cleaner and straight-forward. And it is only 29 lines and I don't see a problem with it going to stable. And I as author and maintainer of this code have very much the prerogative to decide which way to go, TYVM. No matter how much you passive-aggressively bitch. Thanks to your last mail, I won't have to make this choice anymore. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.