Alexander Malmberg wrote:
> However, in the original patch, the wrap-around is just ugly; it isn't
> really a problem since the wrap-around behavior of unsigned ints is
> defined by the c standard.
It may not please the educated eye, but it works :-)
Also, the patch doesn't need a cast which would limit the possible length of strings.
In fact, I think it is a clean way to solve the problem, as it simply checks
if layout_char is in the legal range. This is absolutely safe, straigth forward
and easy to understand.
> I've committed a slightly different patch that's both pretty and safe,
>
> if (layout_char > r.location)
> {
> if (layout_char >= r.location + r.length)
> layout_char += lengthChange;
> else
> layout_char = r.location;
> }
Well, it doesn't work.
That's all I can say, as I have not much knowledge of the internals here.
Here are the involved variables of the method for my test case:
layout_char = 26
r.location = 0
r.length = 1
lengthChange = -29
Georg
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnustep mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnustep
