On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 05:43:28PM +0100, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 01/18/2012 04:29 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
I'm not sure this is actually a legibility improvement, if anything it's probably less clear than the original as now the setup of the loop is spread even further around the function.
Would it make it clearer if I set i to 0 right before the while?
That'd help a bit. Though I'd just go with a for loop, the while clearly doesn't look any better - I was just suggesting it without actually having tried writing it out.
Performance isn't really a concern in this path unless we do something totally insane. Thinking time on the part of the reader needs to be considered too...
Sure it is not a concern. These small 'Performance isn't really a concern in this path' at the end ads up that we need faster CPUs to have the same perceived perfomrance.
Yeah, but if that percieved performance is already instantaneous there's no need to worry :) My first thought would've been to just continue on sample rates we don't like rather than trying to break out of an iteration of 4 steps early.