-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Array(::AbstractRange)
should return an Array
#50568
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
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 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 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Just a minor note from the sidelines: there is a discussion in this PR why this method is needed, and why removing it would be possible, but would require changing code/behavior for which in turn it is unclear why it is the way it is.
After this PR, there'll be one more layer which when reviewed in a couple years, people will wonder "why is it this way?" and a future PR might also say "it is unclear why it is there" just referencing this method now?
Of course they can dig through old commits, then look up the corresponding PRs, read the discussions there, rinse and repeat ("code archaeology").
Live would be much easier for those poor future developers if there was a brief comment here summarizing this (and if there had been such a comment in the code you were wondering about, I am sure that would have been helpful, too... :-/).
Anyway, just my two cents as a bystander. You do you :-). For what it's worth, I'll appreciate your contribution either way :-)
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.
Yes, a comment here would make sense if we decide to retain this method
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.
Looking at the git blame, it seems support for non-conforming
UnitRange
s was added intentionally in #27302, and is pre-1.0 behavior(!). In light of this, I'll add a comment now to link to that discussion, but in the future, it might be better to returnStepRange
s automatically in such cases by checking the type of something likeoneadditiveunit
, as discussed on discourse.