On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:28:51PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/20/2016 08:22 AM, tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote:
> >From: Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org>
>
> >+ unsigned int len = cond_list.length ();
> >+ for (unsigned int i = len - 1; i < len; i--)
>
> This is a really icky way to write a loop, the i < len condition makes it
> look like a forward one. We have FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT{,_REVERSE}, any reason not
> to use these?
I'll agree that depending on unsigned wrapping is a tad wierd, but
personally I think FOR_EACH_VEC_* are pretty icky, and just forget to
think about them before writing a loop. The vec::iterate () methods are
a little slower than they need to be since they check the vector length
each iteration instead of caching it (and pretty sure the compiler can't
save you in a bunch of these places). Its Unfortunate you need to
declare a temporary for the vector item, and worse that temporary can't
be scoped by the loop. Finally it seems like more work to remember
the order of arguments to FOR_EACH_VEC_ than just to write the loop.
That all said if people really feel strongly and I'll grant consistancy
matters I can try and change loops to use FOR_EACH_VEC_*.
Trev
>
>
> Bernd
