>> AFAICS, near misses on wraparound in and of itself have no correlation >> with statistical changes in your data, so I'd agree it isn't >> necessary, and the fact that it behaves differently in this more >> narrow case than it would in the more general case, when these two >> cases are (as far as I've ever known) supposed to behave the same way, >> I'd be +1 to remove this.
> Yeah, that matches my impression. +1 to remove it. That is fine with me also. The patch LGTM. -- Sami
