On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Petri Latvala wrote:
> On 08/14/2014 11:00 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Another thing I'd like to see is to change minmax_range to call things
>> "low" and "high" instead of "range[0]" and "range[1]." This helps
>> readability, and the tricks with indirect
On 08/14/2014 11:00 AM, Connor Abbott wrote:
Another thing I'd like to see is to change minmax_range to call things
"low" and "high" instead of "range[0]" and "range[1]." This helps
readability, and the tricks with indirect addressing that having an
array lets you do are things we really should
On 08/14/2014 07:04 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
---
I'd squash this in at minimum. The changes are
- Whitespace
- Removal of unnecessary destructor
- Renaming "one" and "two" to "a" and "b" (one->value.u[c0] <
two->value.u[c0]...)
- continue -> break
- assert(!...) -> unreachable
- Not d
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> ---
> I'd squash this in at minimum. The changes are
>
> - Whitespace
> - Removal of unnecessary destructor
> - Renaming "one" and "two" to "a" and "b" (one->value.u[c0] <
> two->value.u[c0]...)
> - continue -> break
> - assert(!...) -> u
---
I'd squash this in at minimum. The changes are
- Whitespace
- Removal of unnecessary destructor
- Renaming "one" and "two" to "a" and "b" (one->value.u[c0] <
two->value.u[c0]...)
- continue -> break
- assert(!...) -> unreachable
- Not doing assignments in if conditionals
- Marking swiz
