This is a non-functional and untested simplification. The increment operator
for color isn't really necessary and seems a bit unnatural to me.
Passed STC:
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 47027 W: 10589 L: 10518 D: 25920
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/
5d3472d10ebc5925cf0e8d3e
Closes https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/pull/2247
No functional change
int steps[][5] = { {}, { 7, 9 }, { 6, 10, 15, 17 }, {}, {}, {}, { 1, 7, 8, 9 } };
- for (Color c = WHITE; c <= BLACK; ++c)
+ for (Color c : { WHITE, BLACK })
for (PieceType pt : { PAWN, KNIGHT, KING })
for (Square s = SQ_A1; s <= SQ_H8; ++s)
for (int i = 0; steps[pt][i]; ++i)
if ((e->evaluationFunction = Endgames::probe<Value>(key)) != nullptr)
return e;
- for (Color c = WHITE; c <= BLACK; ++c)
+ for (Color c : { WHITE, BLACK })
if (is_KXK(pos, c))
{
e->evaluationFunction = &EvaluateKXK[c];
// We didn't find any specialized scaling function, so fall back on generic
// ones that refer to more than one material distribution. Note that in this
// case we don't return after setting the function.
- for (Color c = WHITE; c <= BLACK; ++c)
+ for (Color c : { WHITE, BLACK })
{
if (is_KBPsK(pos, c))
e->scalingFunction[c] = &ScaleKBPsK[c];
assert(0 && "pos_is_ok: Index");
}
- for (Color c = WHITE; c <= BLACK; ++c)
- for (CastlingSide s = KING_SIDE; s <= QUEEN_SIDE; s = CastlingSide(s + 1))
+ for (Color c : { WHITE, BLACK })
+ for (CastlingSide s : {KING_SIDE, QUEEN_SIDE})
{
if (!can_castle(c | s))
continue;
hasPawns = pos.pieces(PAWN);
hasUniquePieces = false;
- for (Color c = WHITE; c <= BLACK; ++c)
+ for (Color c : {WHITE, BLACK})
for (PieceType pt = PAWN; pt < KING; ++pt)
if (popcount(pos.pieces(c, pt)) == 1)
hasUniquePieces = true;
ENABLE_INCR_OPERATORS_ON(PieceType)
ENABLE_INCR_OPERATORS_ON(Piece)
-ENABLE_INCR_OPERATORS_ON(Color)
ENABLE_INCR_OPERATORS_ON(Square)
ENABLE_INCR_OPERATORS_ON(File)
ENABLE_INCR_OPERATORS_ON(Rank)