On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:52:26 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:16:03 +0000, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote:
> > There was no problem with the logic. The code in the two functions was
> > almost identical, so I'd like to make any future changes in just one
> > place.
> >
> > You didn't actually answer my question - is the logic in the new
> > function correct?
> 
> Honestly I didn't look too closely yet since I'm not convinced we need
> the change at all.  I would prefer to keep the functions separate.  In
> my opinion, enough special casing would be required that it wouldn't be
> worth it, and it would make the code less clear.

Okay.