On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:33:06PM -0800, Phil Pokorny wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski > <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Searching for the member of an array closest to 'x' is > > duplicated in several places. > > > > Add two macros that implement this algorithm for arrays > > sorted both in ascending and descending order. > > I don't see the point here. You're not saving any code because your > macros create functions at each invocation site. And your macro is > more complicated than the code it replaces because it has all the > syntactic cruft to make it adaptable to the different datatypes and > sort orders. > > Certainly it is easy to make an off by one mistake in a loop like this > so there might be some small value there, but I'm not sure the > complication is worth that savings for the small number of use points. > Particularly because you're not saving any code. > I think the lm85 conversion actually introduces a bug with such an off-by-one mistake. And if it doesn't, there is still a unexplained and not easy to understand '-1' in one of the calls to find_closest(). So the question is if the new code really improves the situation in that respect. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
