[perim]

🎯 What: Replaced the complex nested switch and if statements in luck_combine with a 2D constexpr lookup table.
💡 Why: This significantly improves maintainability and readability by transforming deeply nested branching logic into a simple, explicit mapping. It also provides a slight performance improvement by reducing branch prediction complexity.
✅ Verification: Verified by generating the combination matrix directly from the original code using a temporary test harness. Then compiled the refactored code and ran the full 17-test suite (ctest) to ensure exact behavioral preservation.
✨ Result: The function now consists of a clean and easy-to-read lookup table, eliminating cognitive overhead and improving code health.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 13349533548128313110 started by @perim

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[perim]

Don't think this looks more readable.

[google-labs-jules]

Don't think this looks more readable.

Understood. The 2D array approach may feel more compact but less explicit. I will revert the change back to the original switch statement, as the primary goal is readability and this approach did not achieve that for reviewers.