> It also aligns the code with print_unaligned_vertical(), but I can't see why > need_recordsep = true; > is a no-op here (scan-build dislikes only need_recordsep = false;). > I suspect that removing that line will change the behaviour in cases when > need_recordsep = false after the loop "print cells" and the loop > "for (footers)" is executed.
Hi Karina,
As I understand cont->cells is supoused to have all cont->ncolumns * cont->nrows entries filled so the loop "print cells" always assigns need_recordsep = true, except when there are no cells at all or cancel_pressed == true. If cancel_pressed == true then footers are not printed. So to have need_recordsep == false before the loop "for (footers)" table should be empty, and need_recordsep should be false before the loop "print cells". It can only be false there when cont->opt->start_table == true and opt_tuples_only == true so that headers are not printed. But when opt_tuples_only == true footers are not printed either.
So technically removing "need_recordsep = true;" won't change the outcome.
Thanks for the confirmation.
But it's not obvious, so I also have doubts about removing this line. If someday print options are changed, for example to support printing footers and not printing headers, or anything else changes in this function, the output might be unexpected with this line removed.
That part I didn't understand. How are we going to make this function less readable by removing the complicating part.