X3: skip_over: Remove redundant check

[Kojoley]

End iterator check is redundant here because it is done in skipper.

[djowel]

I think we should at least have a precondition assert there to be sure.

[Kojoley]

We can't place an assertion here, it will fire when postskip is enabled and there is nothing to postskip.

[djowel]

We can't place an assertion here, it will fire when postskip is enabled and there is nothing to postskip.

We can add the check in the postskip so it won't fire.

[Kojoley]

I don't know how it can be done without touching everything else, and it will still fire if eps or attr is the last parser in a sequence.

[djowel]

I don't know how it can be done without touching everything else, and it will still fire if eps or attr is the last parser in a sequence.

Yeah, thinking about it some more, I'm coming to the same conclusion.

[djowel]

OK, you are right. It should not be done here.

[breuhan]

Attention this change is introducing a regression in boost 1.68.0 and 1.67.0 if you use something like (as shown in some example code):
phrase_parse(begin, end, rule, !byte);
The program than hangs in an infinite loop. I was able to fix that by using
phrase_parse(begin, end, rule, !eps);

[Kojoley]

@cylonbrain please provide a minimal working example. If you think there is a regression it would be better to open an issue.