zorba-coders team mailing list archive

[Juan Zacarias <juan457@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi regarding the issue of not using the flag for INF values.

The thing is the following whenever you ask for the value of a INF or -INF number you will get the highest positive or negative number available 9223372036854775807 or -9223372036854775807 being the case for 32 bits. 

So I though of using the flags to avoid unnecessary processing whenever a INF value is present. It will add 5 checks for INF values to the code that's 4 ifs that would be present in every call of the subsequence and 1 more if the length is INF each of them being done only once. A way to avoid this flags we could use the value equivalents of the INF, but even though we will need to add 2 flag checks since there is actually a bug with the implementation and whenever there is an INF in the start position (we will be moving along the whole sequence with no need since it should return an empty sequence.) other problem would be present if the length is set to INF since if we manage a numeric value for the INF it would be doing a decreasing value operation and an extra check in the while statement.

That's why I thought of using the extra flags since besides we do 3 more flag checks we do them only once during the whole operation of subsequence and doesn't do unnecessary operations for INF values.


Let me know your opinion.
-- 
https://code.launchpad.net/~zorba-coders/zorba/bug1082740_fn_subsequence/+merge/157755
Your team Zorba Coders is subscribed to branch lp:zorba.