Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: >> VecNormBegin(X,&norm); >> function(X,&norm); >> VecNormEnd(X,&norm); > > and function() used split reduction with the &norm argument it would get a > false match so yes your request argument would be required. But we could > eliminate that possibly by checking for each new begin if its arguments > exactly match an outstanding begin and erroring in that case. Thus > eliminating the need for the publicly visible request? Does this still > support all "reasonable" use cases?
Yeah, I think this would be sufficient.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
