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. Thanks, -- William