-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
improved read onlyness and constness #7394
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
badasahog
wants to merge
4
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
constnessAndReadOnlyness
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+246
−239
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
cb5c837
improved read onlyness and constness
badasahog b17b193
Merge branch 'master' into constnessAndReadOnlyness
badasahog 9f86a9e
Merge branch 'master' into constnessAndReadOnlyness
MichaelChirico f52580e
Merge branch 'master' into constnessAndReadOnlyness
MichaelChirico File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @badasahog thanks for the change. Funnily enough, I think we started down the same rabbit hole independently -- much of the changes in the original PR wound up covered by #7611 and #7615.
I think there is still some value to what's left here, but it's mixed in with something that we decided against in those PRs:
#7611 (comment)
Basically, code like
LOGICAL(x)[0]is functionally idiomatic in R. WhileLOGICAL_RO(x)[0]is more technically correct, it will be visually distracting for R developers. And anyway, these cases can easily be found by regex & restored if we decide differently in the future.There might be some cases in very hot loops where there is a performance reason to switch, but we'd want thorough benchmarking if so.
If you wouldn't mind please reverting these changes, it will make reviewing the rest of the PR much easier.