|
| From: | dak |
| Subject: | Re: Limit looping in Grob::common_refpoint (issue 4079) (issue 134600043 by address@hidden) |
| Date: | Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:35:14 +0000 |
https://codereview.appspot.com/134600043/diff/40001/flower/include/strict-counter.hh File flower/include/strict-counter.hh (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/134600043/diff/40001/flower/include/strict-counter.hh#newcode30 flower/include/strict-counter.hh:30: T MINIMUM = std::numeric_limits<T>::min (), Is there a point in calling something a counter that can assume negative values? https://codereview.appspot.com/134600043/diff/40001/flower/include/strict-counter.hh#newcode34 flower/include/strict-counter.hh:34: int value_; int? Not T? https://codereview.appspot.com/134600043/diff/40001/flower/include/strict-counter.hh#newcode37 flower/include/strict-counter.hh:37: Strict_counter &operator = (const Strict_counter &); // not needed yet Any point in blocking the default copy constructors here? https://codereview.appspot.com/134600043/diff/40001/flower/include/strict-counter.hh#newcode42 flower/include/strict-counter.hh:42: Strict_counter &operator ++() Only prefix operators? https://codereview.appspot.com/134600043/diff/40001/flower/include/strict-counter.hh#newcode45 flower/include/strict-counter.hh:45: abort (); Abort without any additional output is not all that helpful. This become worse by GCC knowing that abort will not return: it will just compile a single abort call in one module and have every conditional abort jump there. That makes for quite confusing backtraces since it tends to show functions (and variable values) that were not actually involved. https://codereview.appspot.com/134600043/
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |