Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> in lines >> 872-893, this - >> >> if (s[k].inc > 0) >> old_max += (s[k].ubnd - s[k].lbnd) * s[k].inc; >> else >> old_min += (s[k].ubnd - s[k].lbnd) * s[k].inc; >> >> - suggests that (old_min, old_max) will be (inclusive, exclusive), > > Hmm, no, this loop computes the range of valid indices into the > underlying storage vector and is not concerned with the number of > elements. Thus, all valid indices i must satisfy old_min <= i <= > old_max.
Thanks for explaining this. (And sorry for this late reply.) > I'm inclined not to do anything about this until starting a bigger, > more general cleanup of the code. Thoughts? Agreed. Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Bug-guile mailing list Bug-guile@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile