On Friday 09 August 2002 6:50 pm, Martin Vermeer wrote: > 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.
I come from the world of fortran myself, so know exactly what you're talking about ;-) > 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. it does in these cases, but I'll let you trial it properly before committing it. Wasn't there a case where it didn't work? Angus
