| | <<<Back 1 day (to 2012/03/10) | 2012/03/11 |
| Robin_Watts | sebras: hi | 01:00.47 |
| | Yes, that's intended. | 01:02.13 |
| sebras | Robin_Watts: ok... why is that? | 10:08.36 |
| Robin_Watts | because that's the way the algorithm works. | 10:48.34 |
| | Maybe I'm not understanding what you're asking. | 10:48.44 |
| sebras | Robin_Watts: probably not. let me try again: add_weight() takes int i as an argument (call by value). in the beginning of the function you have the "Ensure i is in range" comment and the if-statements and assignments to i, after which there are return statements. | 10:55.30 |
| | Robin_Watts: why do you change the local variable i before returning? | 10:55.41 |
| Robin_Watts | I change i, but then I assign i into the weights array. | 10:56.20 |
| | In draw_simple_scale.c | 10:56.52 |
| | Oh, sorry, I see what you mean. | 10:57.10 |
| | That must be a hangover of previous versions. | 10:57.20 |
| | Liens 310 and 315 can probably go :) | 10:57.39 |
| sebras | yes. | 10:58.00 |
| | clang spotted it for me last night. | 10:58.15 |
| | but I don't know the code well enough to change it with confidence. | 10:58.41 |
| | I was unsure if the assignment should go or the return-statements | 11:00.14 |
| Robin_Watts | In previous versions I've implemented different strategies at the edge. | 11:00.37 |
| | but I settled on what you see there; so the assignments should go, the returns should stay. | 11:00.58 |
| sebras | Robin_Watts: pushed to sebras/master | 11:02.47 |
| | Forward 1 day (to 2012/03/12)>>> | |
IRC Logs