From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28835 invoked from network); 16 Jul 1999 09:16:33 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 16 Jul 1999 09:16:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 13191 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 1999 09:16:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 7170 Received: (qmail 13184 invoked from network); 16 Jul 1999 09:16:15 -0000 Message-Id: <9907160845.AA35323@ibmth.df.unipi.it> To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: Bad optimisations: (Was: Test version zsh-3.1.6-test-1) In-Reply-To: "Sven Wischnowsky"'s message of "Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:12:52 DFT." <199907160912.LAA18749@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:45:19 +0200 From: Peter Stephenson Sven Wischnowsky wrote: > Playing some more: both > > firstarg = (*args && **args == '?' ? *args++ : *args); > > and > > if (*args && **args == '?') > firstarg = *args++; > else > firstarg = *args; > > work around the bug, too. Should I send a patch for one of these? They > probably keep the code better readable (although they don't look much > less silly). That might look a bit neater. You'd better send it relative to the altered code, so I don't have to spend all of 30 seconds backing that off. -- Peter Stephenson Tel: +39 050 844536 WWW: http://www.ifh.de/~pws/ Dipartimento di Fisica, Via Buonarroti 2, 56127 Pisa, Italy