Use BangBang to widen containers if needed #35
Merged
Conversation
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
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #35 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 97.45% 97.43% -0.03%
==========================================
Files 5 5
Lines 118 117 -1
==========================================
- Hits 115 114 -1
Misses 3 3
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
I think we're fine to go into |
cpfiffer
approved these changes
May 7, 2020
|
Is this good to go? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR addresses the problem with
transition_save!for stochastic control flow mentioned in TuringLang/DynamicPPL.jl#105 (comment). It changes the default implementations for writing and appending to a container of transitions fromsetindex!andpush!toBangBang.setindex!!andBangBang.push!!which widen the container or return a new immutable instance if needed. For consistency with these default implementations and to indicate that one has to return the (potentially new) container, I renamedtransitions_save!to ``save!!(andtransitions_init` to just `transitions`).I'm wondering, should we start with merging such breaking changes to a dev branch first? I assume that, e.g., solving or addressing #31 will also require some changes of the interface, and hence maybe it would make sense to gather multiple breaking changes before merging them into master and releasing them?