Peter O'Gorman wrote: > Now, looking at the expanded version, I am unsure if my patch is > correct, is the test supposed to be that input() != 0 or that (yy_bp + > input ()) != 0 ? At the moment, due to operator precedence, it is > testing that yy_bp + input () is non-zero, is that intentional?
Of course we're just testing that the thing builds, so this is not important, adding the parentheses is the right thing. Peter -- Peter O'Gorman http://pogma.com
