On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Nathan Sidwell <nat...@acm.org> wrote:
> We currently have both TYPE_{MIN,MAX}VAL and TYPE_{MIN,MAX}_VALUE pairs of
> accessors. This is confusing. The former is the tree-agnostic raw field
> accessor, which I propose renaming TYPE_{MIN,MAX}VAL_RAW, as is common with
> other raw accessors.
>
> The latter pair are for accessing numeric types. I've committed this patch
> where the former pair were used when the latter pair should have been.
> That's the obvious cleanup. I'll post renaming patch shortly.
Thanks, cleanup looks good.
Richard.
> nathan
>
> --
> Nathan Sidwell
