refactor(math): no need for a dedicated type for Constant#728
Open
Eh2406 wants to merge 1 commit intotxpipe:mainfrom
Open
refactor(math): no need for a dedicated type for Constant#728Eh2406 wants to merge 1 commit intotxpipe:mainfrom
Eh2406 wants to merge 1 commit intotxpipe:mainfrom
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughRefactored constants in the math module from custom Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~15 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
While trying to figure out what
struct Constantwas being used for I tried some compiler driven development. That is to say, I removed the definition and looked at where the error messages were. When all was said and done, I did not figure out what justified the New Type and the resulting code seemed somewhat easier to read. (I'm happy to close the PR if I've missed something important and the abstraction does pull its weight.)Summary by CodeRabbit