improvide readability by removing explicit loops with function re-use #3
+17
−21
Conversation
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
squell
force-pushed
the
pwfeedback
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2924143 to
fcb64f8
Compare
bjorn3
reviewed
Jan 7, 2025
squell
force-pushed
the
pwfeedback
branch
2 times, most recently
from
626721b to
a33e0b6
Compare
|
CI is failing ever after two retries. |
Looks like a flaky test, succeeded now. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Of course using
.fill()is more inefficient than the loop, but it feels less C-y this way.I've also renamed
isince it's quite cryptic (and since I introduced aerase_feedback(sink, 1), which is nearly indistinguishable fromerase_feedback(sink, i).