Remove a redundant ?: in the nethack_keypad code.

I think all of the cases in this switch must have originally said
(shift_state ? 'this' : 'that'), and in all but the VK_NUMPAD5 case
the two options were different, and I left VK_NUMPAD5 containing a
redundant ?: just to make it line up in a nice table with the others.
But now the others all have more options than that because I had to
support Ctrl as well as Shift modifiers, so there's no reason to have
that silly ?: lingering around (and it annoys Coverity).

diff --git a/windows/window.c b/windows/window.c
index fbbf4ce3f32c25547948f5a8207d81697e83531b..004eb4f827eeccaf6ebc3bf1da8bb5f499c94318 100644 (file)
--- a/windows/window.c
+++ b/windows/window.c
@@ -4249,7 +4249,7 @@ static int TranslateKey(UINT message, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam,
                *p++ = "hH\010\010"[shift_state & 3];
                return p - output;
              case VK_NUMPAD5:
-               *p++ = shift_state ? '.' : '.';
+               *p++ = '.';
                return p - output;
              case VK_NUMPAD6:
                *p++ = "lL\014\014"[shift_state & 3];