Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 06:45:52PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Obviously line 133 is never reached because 131 already matches such >>> paths. And return 1 seems to be wrong thing to do for line 133 >>> anyway. What is line 133 supposed to do? >> return 0 and be above all of the rest, I think. Good catch. I wonder > Not "next" instead of "return"? Oh, duh, yes, that would make more sense. Hm, I get the feeling I didn't think about that modification at all. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
