During review your patch I didn't understand why are you checking that the variable is path and not new_path of type T_SamplePath (I highlighted it)?
Is it a typo and should be new_path?
I don't think there is any difference: path and new_path are the same pointer in this case.
Besides, it may not be important, but reviewing your code all the time stumbled on the statement of the comments while reading it (I highlighted it too). This:
* path_is_reparameterizable_by_child * Given a path parameterized by the parent of the given child relation, * see if it can be translated to be parameterized by the child relation. * * This must return true if and only if reparameterize_path_by_child() * would succeed on this path.
Maybe is it better to rewrite it simplier:
* This must return true only if reparameterize_path_by_child() * would succeed on this path.
I don't think so. "if and only if" is more accurate to me.
And can we add assert in reparameterize_pathlist_by_child function that pathlist is not a NIL, because according to the comment it needs to be added there:
Hmm, I'm not sure, as in REPARAMETERIZE_CHILD_PATH_LIST we have already explicitly checked that the pathlist is not NIL.