This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 13, 2022. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 116
I1132 #362
Open
knizhnik
wants to merge
5
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
i1132
base: main
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and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
I1132 #362
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
6d83ac8
Optimized ModifierId
knizhnik 2d46a9d
[refer #1132] Change ModifierId representation
knizhnik 2d88d00
Replace FileTreeWalker with recursive delete function
knizhnik eb31018
Merge branch 'master' into i1132
kushti 37f2969
Merge branch 'master' into i1132
kushti 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
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.
I think this is confusing reuse, which complicates things.
So I suggest to declare
object VersionTag extends TaggedType[util.ModifierId]
So we don't accidentally confuse two types.
In particular, is it always 32 long hash?
Also ScalaDoc is missing, so these assumptions should be described in ScalaDoc.
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.
I think that the main source of confusion is that there are many different types which are in0turn just wrappers around Array[Byte]:
ModifierId, VersionTag, EncodedTokenId, EncodedBoxId, ByteArrayWrapper
From my point of view I leave just one implementation (my choice is ByteArrayWrapper, because it most clear term) and may be left other types as aliases.
Concerning size of byte array: is it always 32 bytes or can have arbitrary length, I also do not know whether all hashes (keys) used in Ergo are 32 bytes long, but definitely it is not true for generic ByteArrayWrapper. Also my choice is to not make this assumption in ByteArrayWrapper implementation. If you think that speed of hash function is so critical, we can add just one extra if: