Skip to content
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

Fuse iterators in InterleaveShortest #872

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

phimuemue
Copy link
Member

@phimuemue phimuemue commented Feb 8, 2024

In my book, InterleaveShortest should not produce more items than Interleave, but so far it did for unfused source iterators.

This PR brings InterleaveShortest in line with Interleave. The documentation already (incorrectly) stated that InterleaveShortest is fused.

Related to #533.

This brings InterleaveShortest in line with Interleave.
The documentation already (incorrectly) stated that InterleaveShortest is fused.
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 8, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (6814180) 94.38% compared to head (d8f7f59) 94.28%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #872      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   94.38%   94.28%   -0.11%     
==========================================
  Files          48       48              
  Lines        6665     6665              
==========================================
- Hits         6291     6284       -7     
- Misses        374      381       +7     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@Philippe-Cholet
Copy link
Member

Philippe-Cholet commented Feb 8, 2024

I started an investigation ("blame" in the web pages of our code is even more powerful than I thought (for each line, we can have navigate its history)):
In #31 it was added and was actually fused.
Then the commit that is interesting us here is beaf395 (by bluss, he missed one comment in this "unfuse" commit that you found).

@phimuemue
Copy link
Member Author

I started an investigation ("blame" in the web pages of our code is even more powerful than I thought (for each line, we can have navigate its history)): In #31 it was added and was actually fused. Then the commit that is interesting us here is beaf395 (by bluss, he missed one comment in this "unfuse" commit that you found).

I'm fine with either unfused or fused, but I'd vote for uniform behavior. Not sure if we have a general guideline regarding fusedness, though.

@Philippe-Cholet
Copy link
Member

I'm fine with either unfused or fused, but I'd vote for uniform behavior. Not sure if we have a general guideline regarding fusedness, though.

I agree.
I think it would be great to have a clear guideline about fusedness. And maybe better tests about (un)fusedness. I'm not sure all the iterators behave correctly in that regard (and have correct documentation).
It's not very high on my TODO list though as I'd rather triage/complete old issues/PRs and work on fold specializations and maybe_/Try to eventually move to use const-generics.

@Philippe-Cholet
Copy link
Member

I'm gonna make an issue about fusedness to see opened issues and PRs related to it, clarify the situation (like make a guideline) and eventually make a TODO list about all this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants