This is highly related to revision 115. Apparently the bug was present in two locations, not one.
This is highly related to revision 115.
Apparently the bug was present in two locations,
not one.

Someone should seriously consider to refactor some of this code...


SixTrack/SixTrack,SixTrack/SixTrack,SixTrack/SixTrack,SixTrack/SixTrack,SixTrack/SixTrack,SixTrack/SixTrack