Remove redundant index type from Expr::For
#66
Merged
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
ravenrothkopf
approved these changes
Aug 7, 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
While simplifying the compound instructions in #64, I didn't realize that the
indexfield ofExpr::Foris redundant, because it's always going to be the same as the type ofarg. This PR removes that redundantindexfield.All the resulting changes here are uninteresting, with the possible exception of
rose-interp: we add a new call to the.def()method on theFuncNode. This should be fine because conventionally this method is very cheap, but perhaps later we might want to modify the interpreter to keep a direct reference to the function instead of just theFuncNode; this is the strategy used in #53, for instance.