Rewrite number library
#2903
Merged
Rewrite number library
#2903
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
* Fix using incorrect arguments in functions * Tag more functions as explicitly `number` parameters * More test coverage
|
Linter coming in clutch |
thegrb93
approved these changes
Nov 27, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Resolves #2900
_INFe2functionsyntaxe(),inf(),pi()) since you can use their constant counterparts_E,_INF,_PInodiscardtoString(nn)(still raised op cost for it since you should really be usingformatinstead, or wait for format strings)Performance
Number functions should run faster as they will be on the new compiler rewrite format. Op costs haven't changed however. They should've been higher before.