On 09/15/2011 01:55 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> That's tempting, but not needed.
>> MB_CUR_MAX is already defined appropriately, so what's there is fine:
>>
>> d->mb_cur_max = MB_CUR_MAX;
>>
>
> Yes, I'm suggesting to drop the "appropriate definition" (patch 22)
> for now. It was too clever for me to grasp it, so I need separate
> convincing.:)
Sorry, it's precisely to avoid the added conditionals like the one
in your proposed alternative that I want to be guaranteed MB_CUR_MAX
is always defined.
As I said, let's revisit this after merging the uncontroversial bits
(which are 3/4 of the series or more).
Paolo
