>From Junio C Hamano, Fri 28 Feb 2020 at 12:39:50 (-0800) :
> "Count up while i+1 is smaller than..." looked extremely unnatural and
> it was hard to grok, at least to me. This
> for (i = 0; i < m->num_objects - 1; i++) {
>
> might have been more palatable, but yours is much better.
This is probably a question of taste. The
for (i = 0; i < m->num_objects - 1; i++) {
looks like someone who forgot to use <= instead of < to me (until the body
of the for explain that we are actually iterating over two consecutive
objects), while
for (i = 0; i + 1 < m->num_objects; i++) {
makes it clear that we are iterating over two objects (and has the
advantage of not overflowing :))
> > Though I almost wonder if we should be catching "m->num_objects == 0"
> > early and declaring the midx to be bogus (it's not _technically_ wrong,
> > but I'd have to suspect a bug in anything that generated a 0-object midx
> > file).
> That, too ;-)
Yeah I'll go for that solution in my reroll.
--
Damien Robert
http://www.normalesup.org/~robert/pro
