Re: Minor correctness issue with l_str2d's use of ltolower

[Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>]

> ltolower could be enhanced with a check such as:
> 
> #define ltolower(c)     check_exp((c) >= 'A' && (c) <= 'Z' || (c) >= 'a' && (c) <= 'z', ((c) | ('A' ^ 'a')))
> 
> [...]
> 
> Note: this doesn't change the code's behavior at all, because 0 is equivalent to '.' (or 46, which is the value returned by ltolower('.')) when doing the subsequent checks against mode. It's mostly just cause for confusion.

Thanks for the feedback.

-- Roberto