> > Would we be happy with the following, which would work ?
> > } while (z <= 0 || z == MAX_RANDOM_VALUE);
>
> I suppose this doesn't?
> } while (z <= 0 || z >= MAX_RANDOM_VALUE);
Ah, yes ! That also works and is a lot nicer. Can you please apply ?
Together with the patch in Bruce's queue, the only minor open issue is now
with the -i switch for postmaster in the getaddrinfo_all area
(on this machine a direct nameservice request answers "host not found"),
and the geometry and horology regression expected files.
Thanks
Andreas