Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.

ErasureChunk Proof needn't be Vec<Vec<_>> #3670

Closed
Lldenaurois opened this issue Aug 19, 2021 · 0 comments · Fixed by #3715
Closed

ErasureChunk Proof needn't be Vec<Vec<_>> #3670

Lldenaurois opened this issue Aug 19, 2021 · 0 comments · Fixed by #3715
Assignees
@Lldenaurois

Comments

@Lldenaurois
Copy link
Contributor

nit/future: Do we truely require a Vec<Vec<>>? Or could we avoid all those allocations by employing a single BoundedVec<> and providing a Vec<&[]> or even &[&[]]? Again, not for this PR, a potential future optimization.
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Assignees

@Lldenaurois Lldenaurois

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Add tests and modify as_vec implementation Lldenaurois/polkadot
1 participant
@Lldenaurois