On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 05:30:08PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> Oops. Perhaps I meant more like below -- in any case, the point was
> the same -- to ensure RS_INVAL_NONE is what returns if something
> unexpected happens.
You are right that this could be a bit confusing, even if we should
never reach this state. How about avoiding to return the index of the
loop as result, as of the attached? Would you find that cleaner?
--
Michael