On 12/29/15 2:33 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Le 29/12/2015 09:21, Thomas Neidhart a écrit :
>> On 12/29/2015 04:33 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 12/28/15 8:08 PM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:08:56 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> The significant refactoring to eliminate the
Hi all,
Le 29/12/2015 09:21, Thomas Neidhart a écrit :
> On 12/29/2015 04:33 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 12/28/15 8:08 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:08:56 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
The significant refactoring to eliminate the (standard) next(int)
included in these changes
On 12/29/2015 04:33 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 12/28/15 8:08 PM, Gilles wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:08:56 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> The significant refactoring to eliminate the (standard) next(int)
>>> included in these changes has the possibility of introducing subtle
>>> bugs or perform
On 12/28/15 8:08 PM, Gilles wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:08:56 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> The significant refactoring to eliminate the (standard) next(int)
>> included in these changes has the possibility of introducing subtle
>> bugs or performance issues. Please run some tests to verify tha
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:08:56 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
The significant refactoring to eliminate the (standard) next(int)
included in these changes has the possibility of introducing subtle
bugs or performance issues. Please run some tests to verify that
the same sequences are generated by the 3_
The significant refactoring to eliminate the (standard) next(int)
included in these changes has the possibility of introducing subtle
bugs or performance issues. Please run some tests to verify that
the same sequences are generated by the 3_X code and the refactored
code and benchmarks to show the
