Conversation
Member
|
I also like the unified implementation more, thanks for cleaning up my fix PR! |
aplavin
reviewed
Jun 25, 2022
Co-authored-by: Alexander <alexander@plav.in>
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
@aplavin, thanks for #236. I'm keeping the tests from there (and adding some more unit tests here), but I've changed to a unified implementation, otherwise it seemed like one risked missing some weird types between
NamedTuple{names}andNamedTuple{names, types}(things likeT = NamedTuple{(:a, :b), Tuple{Int, S}} where S).I'm not sure whether those are a problem in practice, but I thought it was safer to keep a unified implementation to avoid weird corner cases.
If this makes sense to you, I'll merge and tag this soon.
Supersedes #236