Em sex., 30 de jun. de 2023 às 11:26, Karina Litskevich < litskevichkar...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> Hi, > > Alexander wrote: > > > It also aligns the code with print_unaligned_vertical(), but I can't see > why > > need_recordsep = true; > > is a no-op here (scan-build dislikes only need_recordsep = false;). > > I suspect that removing that line will change the behaviour in cases when > > need_recordsep = false after the loop "print cells" and the loop > > "for (footers)" is executed. > > Hi Karina, > As I understand cont->cells is supoused to have all cont->ncolumns * > cont->nrows > entries filled so the loop "print cells" always assigns need_recordsep = > true, > except when there are no cells at all or cancel_pressed == true. > If cancel_pressed == true then footers are not printed. So to have > need_recordsep == false before the loop "for (footers)" table should be > empty, > and need_recordsep should be false before the loop "print cells". It can > only > be false there when cont->opt->start_table == true and opt_tuples_only == > true > so that headers are not printed. But when opt_tuples_only == true footers > are > not printed either. > > So technically removing "need_recordsep = true;" won't change the outcome. Thanks for the confirmation. > But > it's not obvious, so I also have doubts about removing this line. If > someday > print options are changed, for example to support printing footers and not > printing headers, or anything else changes in this function, the output > might > be unexpected with this line removed. That part I didn't understand. How are we going to make this function less readable by removing the complicating part. best regards, Ranier Vilela
