I know I silently fixed a similar error a while ago, and someone else mention such an error before. This would be the third time. This seems like a dangerous optimization if competent developers have overlooked it consistently. Is it such a performance win that it justifies a likely bug in the future? honestly asking the question. Is this something we can mitigate with lots of documentation and tests?
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not only was lengthSquared not reset to -1, but mutation via > iterateAll() -> next().set(1.0) totally broken. Would throw AIOOBException > in > some cases. Both are fixed (with new unit tests which should have > existed and would have been failing) and checked in now. > > There are now unit tests for all vector types, mutating via all methods > and checking this caching.
