`GetNextNonInclusive` returns incorrect value under boundary conditions

[emptierset]

This almost certainly also applies to GetPreviousNonInclusive, but I did not test it.

Scenario: GetNextNonInclusive is called with songObjects=[BPM(position=0), BPM(position=1000)] and position=1000. Expected behavior: GetNextNonInclusive returns null. Observed behavior: GetNextNonInclusive returns BPM(position=1000).

I have reproduced the function's code below for convenience:

public static T GetNextNonInclusive<T>(IList<T> songObjects, uint position) where T : SongObject
{
    int pos = GetIndexOfNext(songObjects, position);
    if (pos != NOTFOUND)
    {
        if (songObjects[pos].tick == position && pos < songObjects.Count - 1)
            ++pos;

        return songObjects[pos];
    }
    else
        return null
}

The following code block demonstrates the correct behavior:

public static T GetNextNonInclusive<T>(IList<T> songObjects, uint position) where T : SongObject
{
    int pos = GetIndexOfNext(songObjects, position);
    if (pos != NOTFOUND)
    {
        if (songObjects[pos].tick == position)
        {
            if (pos >= songObjects.Count - 1)
                return null
            ++pos;
        }

        return songObjects[pos];
    }
    else
        return null
}

(and I'd probably rewrite it like this, given the chance):

public static T GetNextNonInclusive<T>(IList<T> songObjects, uint position) where T : SongObject
{
    int pos = GetIndexOfNext(songObjects, position);
    if (pos == NOTFOUND)
        return null;

    if (songObjects[pos].tick == position)
    {
        ++pos;
        if (pos >= songObjects.Count)
            return null;
    }

    return songObjects[pos];
}

[FireFox2000000]

Is there any actual functionality issue that is resulting from this behaviour?

[emptierset]

No idea. I ran into it working on my personal fork of the program. It's just obviously incorrect behavior, so there may be some logic that assumes this function works as it claims to.

[FireFox2000000]

Won't fix, no explicit functionality issue.