On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23:34:08 +0200 Felix Salfelder <[email protected]> wrote:
> is this "2." intentional? the latter looks more "logical" to me... No. Artifact of an extra call to next(), which tells it to stop, then is carried over. ++hidden is in the wrong place. This example really should say 0 for all, since there are no hidden steps. The count displayed includes the displayed step. If there are no objections, I will change it so it is the true count of hidden steps, not hidden+1. _______________________________________________ Gnucap-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucap-devel
