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
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
