---

yaml
---
r: 233593
b: refs/heads/beta
c: 57909f7
h: refs/heads/master
i:
  233591: d3f31fe
v: v3

Author: nikomatsakis

[refs]

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ refs/tags/0.9: 36870b185fc5f5486636d4515f0e22677493f225
 refs/tags/0.10: ac33f2b15782272ae348dbd7b14b8257b2148b5a
 refs/tags/0.11.0: e1247cb1d0d681be034adb4b558b5a0c0d5720f9
 refs/tags/0.12.0: f0c419429ef30723ceaf6b42f9b5a2aeb5d2e2d1
-refs/heads/beta: 63eedfcf536f02e09e7dca7290b803ad8aa243f9
+refs/heads/beta: 57909f7068c5a2fb63f15bc43a7d3e823205608a
 refs/tags/1.0.0-alpha: e42bd6d93a1d3433c486200587f8f9e12590a4d7
 refs/heads/tmp: 370fe2786109360f7c35b8ba552b83b773dd71d6
 refs/tags/1.0.0-alpha.2: 4c705f6bc559886632d3871b04f58aab093bfa2f

branches/beta/src/librustc_data_structures/transitive_relation.rs

@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ impl<T:Debug+PartialEq> TransitiveRelation<T> {
             //    - In the example above, we would reverse to
             //      `[z, y, x]` and then pare down to `[z]`.
             // 4. Reverse once more just so that we yield a vector in
-            //    increasing order of index. Maybe this is silly.
+            //    increasing order of index. Not necessary, but why not.
             //
             // I believe this algorithm yields a minimal set. The
             // argument is that, after step 2, we know that no element
@@ -224,11 +224,11 @@ impl<T:Debug+PartialEq> TransitiveRelation<T> {
             pare_down(&mut candidates, closure); // (2)
             candidates.reverse(); // (3a)
             pare_down(&mut candidates, closure); // (3b)
-            candidates.reverse(); // (4)
             candidates
         });
 
         lub_indices.into_iter()
+                   .rev() // (4)
                    .map(|i| &self.elements[i])
                    .collect()
     }