<p>In <a href="https://github.com/mlpack/mlpack/pull/747#discussion_r75060860">src/mlpack/methods/neighbor_search/spill_search_rules_impl.hpp</a>:</p>
<pre style='color:#555'>> + // better, then take it.
> + if (SortPolicy::IsBetter(queryNode.Parent()->Stat().FirstBound(),
> + worstDistance))
> + worstDistance = queryNode.Parent()->Stat().FirstBound();
> + }
> +
> + // Could the existing bounds be better?
> + if (SortPolicy::IsBetter(queryNode.Stat().FirstBound(), worstDistance))
> + worstDistance = queryNode.Stat().FirstBound();
> +
> + // Cache bounds for later.
> + queryNode.Stat().FirstBound() = worstDistance;
> +
> + worstDistance = SortPolicy::Relax(worstDistance, epsilon);
> +
> + return worstDistance;
</pre>
<p>Ah, I didn't mean use <code>#ifdef</code> directly, I just meant that the idea of using standalone functions with template specializations feels kinda hackish, in the same way that <code>#ifdef</code>s feel kinda hackish.</p>
<p>My thought here is that someone who is new to this code and wants to understand it will come along and get overwhelmed the more files they see (or, really, the more complexity that they perceive). So in that sense, sometimes I think it is better to call out to simple standalone functions. In this case, using template specializations for those would help identify specifically what in the calculation is different. What do you think?</p>
<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/mlpack/mlpack/pull/747/files/fe090ee13c7cad79e2b7eb8b6690628ba3ead1ed#r75060860">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJ4bFExEIrA1FLMSWo9dd4SGIhw4ZTp7ks5qgo0zgaJpZM4JZzLU">mute the thread</a>.<img alt="" height="1" src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AJ4bFAgWsX0pmVtFlRLIhiAxuutFBSGDks5qgo0zgaJpZM4JZzLU.gif" width="1" /></p>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/EmailMessage">
<div itemprop="action" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ViewAction">
<link itemprop="url" href="https://github.com/mlpack/mlpack/pull/747/files/fe090ee13c7cad79e2b7eb8b6690628ba3ead1ed#r75060860"></link>
<meta itemprop="name" content="View Pull Request"></meta>
</div>
<meta itemprop="description" content="View this Pull Request on GitHub"></meta>
</div>
<script type="application/json" data-scope="inboxmarkup">{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/mlpack/mlpack","title":"mlpack/mlpack","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/mlpack/mlpack"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@rcurtin in #747: Ah, I didn't mean use `#ifdef` directly, I just meant that the idea of using standalone functions with template specializations feels kinda hackish, in the same way that `#ifdef`s feel kinda hackish.\r\n\r\nMy thought here is that someone who is new to this code and wants to understand it will come along and get overwhelmed the more files they see (or, really, the more complexity that they perceive). So in that sense, sometimes I think it is better to call out to simple standalone functions. In this case, using template specializations for those would help identify specifically what in the calculation is different. What do you think?"}],"action":{"name":"View Pull Request","url":"https://github.com/mlpack/mlpack/pull/747/files/fe090ee13c7cad79e2b7eb8b6690628ba3ead1ed#r75060860"}}}</script>