https://codereview.appspot.com/551730043/diff/583770043/lily/stencil-integral.cc File lily/stencil-integral.cc (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/551730043/diff/583770043/lily/stencil-integral.cc#newcode496 lily/stencil-integral.cc:496: break; I think that is less readable than desirable. Instead how about putting if (th == 0.0) break; behind the push? That makes very obvious that only one point is being pushed without further cleverness. Either way you'll be checking thickness twice if its non-zero. The trivial way to avoid that would be to simply unfold the loop. Like points[DOWN].push_back (scm_transform (trans, curve.control_[0] + DOWN * normal); if (th != 0.0) points[UP].push_back (scm_transform (trans, curve.control_[0] + UP * normal; Written like that, it actually becomes far from trivial to see why this optimisation would be valid, so maybe add a comment explaining it for the sake of human readers? https://codereview.appspot.com/551730043/
