From abd2a831a3719d89edb98a917cb57e3be2f57b56 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Harte Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:08:44 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Added a further ambiguity. --- .../M68k/Implementation/PerformImplementation.hpp | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/InstructionSets/M68k/Implementation/PerformImplementation.hpp b/InstructionSets/M68k/Implementation/PerformImplementation.hpp index 8cc7ee895..d33db16fa 100644 --- a/InstructionSets/M68k/Implementation/PerformImplementation.hpp +++ b/InstructionSets/M68k/Implementation/PerformImplementation.hpp @@ -48,6 +48,11 @@ namespace M68k { // 68ks the loads and stores could be performed immediately, for the accurate they could // be enqueued, then performed, then a second call to perform that now has the data loaded // could be performed. +// +// (5) is it really helpful for operation to be a template parameter? I'm trying to avoid forcing +// an additional `switch` if it's likely that the caller has already applied one, but does +// that objective justify the syntax overhead for callers that don't inherently have their +// own `switch`? Do the first sort of callers really exist? template < Operation operation,