On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 05:36:07PM -0700, Ken Pizzini wrote:
For the most part, I like it. Two things bother me a little though:
1) I think it's a shame that isleap_sum() needs the compiler to do a % more than isleap() does, but I certainly don't see any clean way of getting around this. (There are ways, but the cures I'm coming up with are all worse than the "disease".) Not a big deal, but I felt a need to mention it in case someone else does have a bright idea.
Well, one can easily quibble over whether the patch that I'm attaching to this message uses a "clean" solution to this minor problem, but I find that the more I look at it, the fonder I am, so I'll offer it for general consideration. Note that I also threw in some officialese for good measure, which can be considered independently of the the proposed isleap_sum() redefinintion. Thanks to Paul Eggert, who pointed out a technical flaw with an earlier incarnation of this expression. --Ken Pizzini