objstr::get_value -> objstr::clone_value#1654
Merged
coolreader18 merged 1 commit intoRustPython:masterfrom Jan 9, 2020
Merged
Conversation
because the previous naming gives unclear performance estimation to users especially comparing to objstr::borrow_value
youknowone
force-pushed
the
clone-value
branch
from
8b375b3 to
13914e0
Compare
coolreader18
approved these changes
Jan 9, 2020
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
because the previous naming gives unclear performance estimation to
users especially comparing to
objstr::borrow_value.I also suggest one of below:
objstr::borrow_value->objstr::get_valueas current expectation.get_values of non-copying types intoborrow_valueandclone_value. For now, there arebytes,int,rangeandtuple.