Jacob Keller <jacob.kel...@gmail.com> writes: >> The cost of fill function having to do the same thing repeatedly is >> negligible, so I am OK with the result, but for fairness, this was >> not "make the callers do this extra thing", but was "the caller can >> prepare these unchanging parts just once, and the fill function that >> is repeatedly run does not have to." > > Sure, but it's a pretty minor optimization and I think the result is > easier to understand.
Yes; in case it wasn't clear, my comment was merely for fairness to the original code. I do agree that the end result of this series makes a very pleasant read.
