On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 04:28:20PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> } else if (initial_velocity != 0) {
> velocity_diff = fabs(initial_velocity - tracker_velocity);
> if (velocity_diff <= vel->max_diff ||
> velocity_diff/(initial_velocity + tracker_velocity) <
> vel->max_rel_diff) {
> /* we're in range with the initial velocity,
> * so this result is likely better
> * (it contains more information). */
> result = tracker_velocity;
> used_offset = offset;
> }else{
> /* we're not in range, quit - it won't get better. */
> DebugAccelF("(dix prtacc) query: tracker too different:"
> " old %2.2f initial %2.2f diff: %2.2f\n",
> tracker_velocity, initial_velocity, velocity_diff);
> break;
> }
> }
As a minor nit, I think this code would be even more clear this way:
if (velocity_diff > vel->max_diff && ...) {
DebugAccelF(...);
break;
}
/* we're in range ... */
result = tracker_velocity;
used_offset = offset;
Another minor nit: Restructuring control flow, as you've done with the
introduced continue statement, isn't described by a commit message of
"rename a bunch of variables". :-)
Jamey
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
