Hi Juha,

> > I think we should add a patch for this, but I don't like the way you did
> > it. Checking for the end value of a for-loop is not a good programming
> > practice. Using memcmp() here should be a lot better and cleaner.
> 
> It depends on how you think about the problem.  If you see the data as just
> an array of bytes, memcmp() is the way to go.  If you think of it as 6
> consecutive key codes, with each one set to 1, for loop is conceptually the            
> right thing to use.

I don't see your difference. We have to match a specific case and we
have to do it with clean code. And as I said, checking the end value of
a for-loop is not good code for me. So I am using memcmp() for it and my
patch is attached.

Regards

Marcel