Pointless and bad article.

I compiled the presented code out curiosity on arm gcc 8.2 on godbolt.org with -O3 op and the results are:

(the original remove is even faster then the so called elegant or the elegant with inline)

  remove_cs101:
          ldr     r2, [r0]
          cmp     r2, r1
          bne     .L3
          b       .L9
  .L6:
          mov     r2, r3
  .L3:
          ldr     r3, [r2, #4]
          cmp     r1, r3
          bne     .L6
          ldr     r3, [r1, #4]
          str     r3, [r2, #4]
          bx      lr
  .L9:
          ldr     r3, [r2, #4]
          str     r3, [r0]
          bx      lr
  
  
  remove_elegant:
          ldr     r2, [r0]
          cmp     r1, r2
          bne     .L12
          b       .L13
  .L14:
          mov     r2, r3
  .L12:
          ldr     r3, [r2, #4]
          cmp     r1, r3
          bne     .L14
          add     r0, r2, #4
  .L13:
          ldr     r3, [r1, #4]
          str     r3, [r0]
          bx      lr
  
  remove_elegant_with_inline:
          ldr     r2, [r0]
          cmp     r1, r2
          cmpne   r2, #0
          bne     .L17
          b       .L18
  .L19:
          mov     r2, r3
  .L17:
          ldr     r3, [r2, #4]
          cmp     r1, r3
          cmpne   r3, #0
          bne     .L19
          add     r0, r2, #4
  .L18:
          ldr     r3, [r1, #4]
          str     r3, [r0]
          bx      lr

EDIT: Hmmm, so much downvote without any reply.

Well if your code needs an article to be explained, rather than the plain solution and brings nothing, even 1 instruction slower, as the compiler can't make the same (faster) result as the plain solution, than your code is pointless. And stating that this is the elegant solution is IMO bad practice.