Tomas Nordin <tomasn@posteo.net> writes:

[...]

> NEW: if non-nil, hunk is already applied
> OLD: if non-nil, hunk is not applied

Those notes might be correct for the normal case but when REVERSE is
non-nil, the notion of NEW and OLD is reversed.

[...]

So I added a check to only satisfy the NEW *and* OLD case when REVERSE is
not given.  What do you think?  (Also aligned the leading whitespace
with original code).  In my manual tests it seems to work.  I learned
about the splitting of hunks and it doesn't seem broken.