On 26 December 2015 at 07:34, Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps it would be better to put this in the EILSEQ part of the > switch above. The result should be the same, AFAICT, since EILSEQ is > the only case when we don't 'continue' or 'return', but having the > code there makes it more self-explanatory (although some comment might > still be in order).
I moved that case to the end, so hopefully the code will be clearer.
