As the code on this post is really compact and hard to read, I made an edit to improve it. However, the author rejected it because this "deviates from the original intent of the post". I do not agree, I did not changed the meaning or behavior of this code.
Based on the diff in the suggestion, you did change random things:
((n++)) went missing, as did a
skip=0 argument, possibly other things. Changing code in a question is risky because it could inadvertently confuse others trying to post an answer or the asker trying to understand answers based on the modified code. The asker wants to see answers based on exactly what they were doing, not based on the new version someone else came up with.