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

Remove invocation #25

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 21, 2024
Merged

Remove invocation #25

merged 2 commits into from
Mar 21, 2024

Conversation

arichiv
Copy link
Collaborator

@arichiv arichiv commented Mar 21, 2024

Let's just say we return the result of running x. That seems closer to convention.

closes #23


Preview | Diff

Let's just say we `return the result of running x`. That seems closer to convention.

closes #23
@arichiv arichiv requested a review from johannhof March 21, 2024 11:02
@arichiv arichiv self-assigned this Mar 21, 2024
Copy link
Member

@johannhof johannhof left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That wfm, still doesn't feel 100% correct though.

@johannhof johannhof merged commit c9c5e4f into main Mar 21, 2024
1 check passed
@johannhof johannhof deleted the arichiv-patch-1 branch March 21, 2024 11:04
@johannhof
Copy link
Member

Thinking about how we would do this "properly", I think we'd separate out most of the steps of all the original getters into separate algorithms and then just use the same algorithm in both places, with different arguments.

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.

Getter substitution is a bit unconventional
2 participants