That’s probably true. But using the if construction in the high level function
is certainly fine; and avoids having to use the if in the low-level kernel,
which will be called many times.
> On 22 May 2015, at 10:31, Toivo Henningsson wrote:
>
> I would think that calling the function as in yo
I am not opposed to that but the same could be said for typemin and typemax.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
> Op 27-feb.-2015 om 21:27 heeft Andreas Noack
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> I think it is fine that the type of the argument determines the behavior
> here. Having "type" in the name wou
some would oppose that.
>
> 2015-02-27 15:42 GMT-05:00 Jutho Haegeman <mailto:juthohaege...@gmail.com>>:
> I am not opposed to that but the same could be said for typemin and typemax.
>
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>
> Op 27-feb.-2015 om 21:27 heeft Andreas No
In principle, it’s also best to wrap all of this in a function, although it
doesn’t seem to matter that much for this case (on my machine).
I get little over 0.6 seconds for the first, and about 0.55 s for the second
and third. That sounds consistent with my expectation. Note also that the
stat
Using random permutations of your original parameter set is a clever idea. It
never even occurred to me when I was trying to find a workaround :-).
On 10 Jul 2014, at 23:03, Thomas Covert wrote:
> Jutho, I was also worried about this. For that reason, “doset” is a random
> permutation of the
Since I just read these operators were later removed from gcc again, it must
not all have been perfect either :D.
On 08 Jul 2014, at 16:04, Jutho wrote:
> Fully realising that this discussion has been settled and the convention is
> here to stay, I nevertheless feel obsessed to make the remark
