-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 107
Add moving of strings from value_ref, fix value constructor #55
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
Conversation
|
Tests are failing as these changes are applied separately from #54, will pass once it is applied. |
|
If one commit requires the other then they should be part of the same pull request. One commit per bugfix doesn't mean you have to put each one into its own pull request. |
| // move semantics. | ||
| if (what_ == what::strfunc) | ||
| return *static_cast<const string*>(f_.p); | ||
| else |
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 would lose the else, it reads better
3fad129 to
c60f3d3
Compare
| // nullptr, and capacity returns 0 | ||
| // when the table pointer is null | ||
| array b{std::move(a), object()}; | ||
| BOOST_TEST(a.capacity() == 0); |
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 would remove these comments because they don't provide any additional information
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.
Done
| if(e.what_ != what::str && | ||
| e.what_ != what::strfunc) | ||
| return false; | ||
| return true; |
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.
Yep this looks much better without the else, as it is absolutely clear that the function ends on line 52
f575416 to
e384f92
Compare
e384f92 to
fdc86db
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #55 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 99.09% 99.09%
========================================
Files 57 57
Lines 4854 4861 +7
========================================
+ Hits 4810 4817 +7
Misses 44 44
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Merged, thanks! |
No description provided.