Filip Navara wrote:
Robert Shearman wrote:
Can you not just use stack->stacknum instead of 0 if the stack
is inverted?
Of course I can (now that I understand the code ;-).
I'm not arguing against it and I'm all for it if it makes it
easier to code,
but I'm just trying to see what stops you from using the same stack direction as at the moment.
If there is enough interest, I can recode it with using the previous stack layout. When I started the patch I just thought it would be easier this way, but now I can reasonably say that it wouldn't be much different.
Ok, that's fair enough. The patch looks good to me.
P.S. In the last patch I sent there was still one bug:
stack->stacknum--;if (n < stack->stackpos) stack->stackpos--;should be
stack->stacknum--;if (n < stack->stackpos && stack->wndprocrecursion) stack->stackpos--;
Ok, I suggest you resubmit the patch with those changes if you haven't already done so.
Rob