On looking over this patch, I found a number of `bugs' in my description,
but they don't change the conclusions. I should have proofread more carefully.
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:48:06 -0500, Michael Witten wrote:
> /****** simulate peek_char and parse_matched_pair() ******/
> shell_getc (1);
> shell_getc (1);
> /*********************************************************/
That's actually missing one `shell_getc (1);' statement; it should be:
/* Simulate peek_char */
shell_getc (1);
/* Simulate parse_matched_pair() */
shell_getc (1);
shell_getc (1);
> if (character == CTLESC || character == CTLNUL)
> {
> token[495] = CTLESC;
> token_index=496; /* assignment below: token[497] = CTLNUL; */
> }
That comment should read `496' rather than `497':
/* assignment below: token[496] = CTLNUL; */
Fortunately, the non-code description that followed got it right.
Sorry for the confusion.
