4 Nov
2013
4 Nov
'13
5:02 p.m.
Matthew Newton wrote:
Is there any way that condition (priority <= 0) can ever be false?
I'll take a look.
It's subsequenty set to c->actions[result] on line 825, which is then tested on line 832, but at 846 we jump back to 'redo', which immediately sets it back to -1 again.
So the condition on 806 _looks_ redundant? It wasn't there in the v2.2.0 test:
The code has changed for the better. But there may be cruft left over from intermediate steps. Alan DeKok.