Feb. 14, 2004
2:41 a.m.
[Neal Norwitz]
Missing the return -1; when list_resize() fails?
Yes. Will fix.
In the following 2 for loops, the original code modified self->ob_size. In the new version I don't notice ob_size being updated. Given the context, I'm not sure if the behaviour is different or not between versions.
self->ob_size is now updated by list_resize() so the loop no longer needs to do the update. This is a nice improvement clients of list_resize() do not need to manage ob_size; rather, the just request the size they want and the data structure keeps its integrity. Raymond