Hello Tim,

On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 1:39 PM Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be> wrote:
> I wonder if we should move the `i++` down to above the `d++`. `i` is not
> being used in the loop body and the only way to exit the loop is the
> `return`. Moving it down has the benefit that it's not as easy to miss
> that both are incremented within the loop (like you did in your first
> patch).
> Or we could get rid of either `i` or `d` entirely and replace it by `(d
> - c)` or `c[i]` respectively.

In fact I've sent v1 by going too fast on my tests, then I realised we
could simplify a lot of things potentially, but would make the patch
easier to be read in two patches, so I sent v2. However as I see you
also agree on a few points I thought about, I will send v3 with a
simplified version of the function.


Reply via email to