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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
CBG-3853: Implementation of range sequence entry for skipped sequence slice #6764
CBG-3853: Implementation of range sequence entry for skipped sequence slice #6764
Changes from 2 commits
f647afe
6b8d43d
ca92d1d
5bd6a02
1ec43ad
6b1db5f
6df3cf8
45dbf87
632a7b3
463583b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm curious what the overhead of the interface will be vs. a single concrete type that can handle single sequences and ranges. ( https://syslog.ravelin.com/go-interfaces-but-at-what-cost-961e0f58a07b )
Most of the difference in behaviour is already in
isRange
checks, and it'd save all of the no-op method implementations.Having said that, this would be closer to a micro-optimisation than the planned refactor of skipped sequences, so I'm OK waiting for all of that work to be done first, since the refactor to change the interface to a single type wouldn't be too intrusive.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with this idea, and am fine doing it in a later optimization. However, it does make me wonder whether anything that's a no-op belongs on the interface. (setStartSeq/setLastSeq/extendRange). Looking at the code, this goes back to the fact that we're using isRange instead of a type switch. Was this intentional for performance reasons?