On 12/06/10 10:37, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 06.12.2010 09:02, schrieb Jes Sorensen: >> On 12/03/10 13:30, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> There is a perfectly logical explanation for that. Doing that would >> require for me to have clue, which is a bit much to expect :) >> >> That said, we should really do the same for the c == -1 case as well. > > That's what I thought at first, too. But then the break relates to the > switch instead of the for, so it would have to become a goto to a new > label. Probably not a big improvement...
Yeah, it hit me the moment I hit send, so ignore that comment. Cheers, Jes
