Sorry, I see it now.
>
>
> Dave Harkness wrote:
> > At 12:41 PM 9/5/2001, Joseph Shraibman wrote:
> >
> >> new patch:
> >
> >
> > There still seems to be an error with the same if-block.
> >
> > ! if (index>=-rows.size())
> > ! internalIndex=rows.size()+index;
> >
> > becomes
Can I have a new version of this for application?
>
>
> Dave Harkness wrote:
> > At 12:41 PM 9/5/2001, Joseph Shraibman wrote:
> >
> >> new patch:
> >
> >
> > There still seems to be an error with the same if-block.
> >
> > ! if (index>=-rows.size())
> > ! internalIndex=rows.s
Dave Harkness wrote:
> At 12:41 PM 9/5/2001, Joseph Shraibman wrote:
>
>> new patch:
>
>
> There still seems to be an error with the same if-block.
>
> ! if (index>=-rows.size())
> ! internalIndex=rows.size()+index;
>
> becomes
>
> ! if (index > -rows_size)
> ! inte
At 12:41 PM 9/5/2001, Joseph Shraibman wrote:
>new patch:
There still seems to be an error with the same if-block.
! if (index>=-rows.size())
! internalIndex=rows.size()+index;
becomes
! if (index > -rows_size)
! internalIndex = rows_size+index;
Note that the original
Barry Lind wrote:
> Joseph,
>
> In looking at this patch it looks OK, except for the following change:
>
> > ! if (index>=-rows.size())
> > --- 725,737
> > ! if (index > rows_size)
>
> I haven't looked at the entire method, but the change you made seems
> incorrect.
>
Joseph,
In looking at this patch it looks OK, except for the following change:
> ! if (index>=-rows.size())
> --- 725,737
> ! if (index > rows_size)
I haven't looked at the entire method, but the change you made seems
incorrect.
If you want this patch to be applied it
