From 85ee4b83ac9c8b8b1cc804ffcdb694dca51ec792 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Eliseo=20Marti=CC=81nez?= <eliseomarmol@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 22:37:26 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Passing-by: Fix FALSE/FAIL confusion.

FALSE was being used instead of FAIL.
They happen to have the same value, so it works the same.
But from function comment it's clear it uses the OK/FAIL convention.
---
 src/nvim/undo.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/nvim/undo.c b/src/nvim/undo.c
index 2ab31b6cfd..9a3da5bcdb 100644
--- a/src/nvim/undo.c
+++ b/src/nvim/undo.c
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ int u_save(linenr_T top, linenr_T bot)
   if (top > curbuf->b_ml.ml_line_count
       || top >= bot
       || bot > curbuf->b_ml.ml_line_count + 1)
-    return FALSE;       /* rely on caller to do error messages */
+    return FAIL;        /* rely on caller to do error messages */
 
   if (top + 2 == bot)
     u_saveline((linenr_T)(top + 1));