On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:59 AM, m...@apollinemike.com
wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2011, at 10:26 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:37 PM, wrote:
>>> Reviewers: ,
>>>
>>> Message:
>>> If I understand it correctly, Han-Wen's original collision code in
>>> beam.cc was treating in
On Apr 28, 2011, at 10:26 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:37 PM, wrote:
>> Reviewers: ,
>>
>> Message:
>> If I understand it correctly, Han-Wen's original collision code in
>> beam.cc was treating intervals as if is_empty checked if they were
>> uninitialized or invalid
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:37 PM, wrote:
> Reviewers: ,
>
> Message:
> If I understand it correctly, Han-Wen's original collision code in
> beam.cc was treating intervals as if is_empty checked if they were
> uninitialized or invalid in some way, whereas in fact, is_empty gets rid
> of anything w
On Apr 28, 2011, at 11:37, mts...@gmail.com wrote:
> Reviewers: ,
>
> Message:
> If I understand it correctly, Han-Wen's original collision code in
> beam.cc was treating intervals as if is_empty checked if they were
> uninitialized or invalid in some way, whereas in fact, is_empty gets rid
> of
Reviewers: ,
Message:
If I understand it correctly, Han-Wen's original collision code in
beam.cc was treating intervals as if is_empty checked if they were
uninitialized or invalid in some way, whereas in fact, is_empty gets rid
of anything where left is greater than right. However, the LEFT and
