Thanks for the comments Yury. > But I'd like also to keep _find_next_bit() consistent with > _find_next_bit_le() Not sure I understand what you're suggesting here: Do you want a find_next_and_bit_le() or do you want to make _find_next_bit_le() more like _find_next_bit() ? In the latter case we might just want to merge it with _find_next_bit() and end up with an extra is_le parameter :)
