Re: [RFC] logic change in m2-valprint.c

[msnyder@sonic.net]

> On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 05:05:12PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
>> is nowhere else for it to be set false), and there is no second
>> time -- we will never enter this block again because we will set
>> "element_seen" to true (and there is nowhere else for it to be
>> set false again).
>>
>> Was that clear?
>
> Clear, but not right.
>
>     152                   element_seen = 0;
>
> On entry, empty_set = 1 and element_seen = 0.  We see an element,
> which causes us set empty_set = 0 and element_seen = 1.  Then we see a
> clear bit in the set and set element_seen to 0 and not change
> empty_set.  Then we see a set bit, and element_seen == 0 with
> empty_set == 0.  We print the comma.
>
> I would test it, but I don't have an M-2 compiler and the expression
> parser can't create sets.  Am I missing something?

You've convinced me -- I don't understand this one.
I'm going to kick it back to Coverity -- consider this one withdrawn.