On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 01:05:04PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > > I believe that this makes more sense (and in the case of copy is probably > correct too ;-) than the current code.
I believe it is correct, though I had to re-read your use of *this's it->second a few times before actually believing it. It's a bit like replacing x = x + y by x += y IIUC, and equally not-immediately-obvious the first time. Separating out the match == "" case indeed makes it a lot clearer (and not even needed for copy -- in the *current* state of text2.C). > Martin, since I don't know the code at all or even fully understand what it > is meant to be doing, perhaps you could have a look at the patch and > ascertain that it is doing what you meant it to be doing in the ffirst place? Does it work (i.e., do sectioning and enumeration counters count as they should)? Looks like it ought to. Verify -- I can't easily from this home dial-up until monday. Ah, and thanks for cleaning up my empty string practices. Microsoft Basic is a terrible thing to inflict upon one. Martin
msg42329/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
