Dimi Paun wrote: > > On Wed, September 13, 2006 1:18 pm, Dan Kegel wrote: >> Offhand that looks like a more serious change than you thought. >> You'd better either really understand the code, or >> add a conformance test that shows this fixes a bug, IMHO. > > Agreed. But that is confusing code, it should have a /* fallthrough */ > comment instead of the break statement if that was the intent. >
And I shall humbly learn to properly check how code works before "fixing" it, in future. :) Thanks, Dan and Dimi, for your helpful comments. -- Andy.