You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We currently hard-code 5, 32, 0x1f, etc., throughout the module. It would be better to use top-level constants (or, better, parameterize the package with backpack, however that works). Completely aside from allowing performance experiments, this will allow testing with smaller arrays. Using arrays of length 8 or even 4 would let us test with much deeper trees than we can now.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We currently hard-code 5, 32, 0x1f, etc., throughout the module. It would be better to use top-level constants (or, better, parameterize the package with backpack, however that works). Completely aside from allowing performance experiments, this will allow testing with smaller arrays. Using arrays of length 8 or even 4 would let us test with much deeper trees than we can now.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: