a few comments about the C++ code, though I don't really where the many differences come from...
https://codereview.appspot.com/581960043/diff/561710044/lily/include/lazy-skyline-pair.hh File lily/include/lazy-skyline-pair.hh (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/581960043/diff/561710044/lily/include/lazy-skyline-pair.hh#newcode23 lily/include/lazy-skyline-pair.hh:23: #include <vector> last please :) https://codereview.appspot.com/581960043/diff/561710044/lily/stencil-integral.cc File lily/stencil-integral.cc (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/581960043/diff/561710044/lily/stencil-integral.cc#newcode188 lily/stencil-integral.cc:188: if (i) i > 0 https://codereview.appspot.com/581960043/diff/561710044/lily/stencil-integral.cc#newcode245 lily/stencil-integral.cc:245: for (vsize i = 0; i < 8; i += 2) hm, can we avoid hardcoding the size twice - or even get rid of it completely? I think you can write Offset points[] = { ... }; and i < sizeof(points) / sizeof(points[0]) https://codereview.appspot.com/581960043/diff/561710044/lily/stencil-integral.cc#newcode275 lily/stencil-integral.cc:275: if (i) i > 0 https://codereview.appspot.com/581960043/diff/561710044/lily/stencil-integral.cc#newcode309 lily/stencil-integral.cc:309: Offset ps[4] = { you should be able to remove the explicit 4 here https://codereview.appspot.com/581960043/diff/561710044/lily/stencil-integral.cc#newcode323 lily/stencil-integral.cc:323: for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) (not here though because the parameter is a pointer now - sigh, sometimes C and C++ are very frustrating...) Instead how about passing a Bezier directly to this function? https://codereview.appspot.com/581960043/
