Pádraig Brady wrote: ... >>> - /* If we're ignoring leading blanks when computing the End >>> - of the field, don't start counting bytes until after skipping >>> - past any leading blanks. */ >>> - if (key->skipeblanks) >>> - while (ptr < lim && blanks[to_uchar (*ptr)]) >>> - ++ptr; >>> + if (echar != 0) /* We need to skip over a portion of the end field. */ >>> + { >>> + if (key->skipeblanks) /* blanks not counted in echar. */ >> >> Was something wrong with the comment you're removing, above? > > I thought it was too verbose. It's replaced with: > /* blanks not counted in echar. */ > which should be obvious in along with the code?
In that case, please stick with the longer comment. Not only is it a complete sentence (which we prefer), but I find it more readable/descriptive. >>> + while (ptr < lim && blanks[to_uchar (*ptr)]) >>> + ++ptr; >>> >>> - /* Advance PTR by ECHAR (if possible), but no further than LIM. */ >>> - remaining_bytes = lim - ptr; >>> - if (echar < remaining_bytes) >>> - ptr += echar; >>> - else >>> - ptr = lim; >>> + ptr = MIN (lim, ptr + echar); >>> + } > > Same here. I removed the comment as the code is (now) obvious I think. Removing that one is ok, I suppose. But in general, please try to add rather than remove comments. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils