-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
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
Bring mutating optimisations back #13
Conversation
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.
Some typos
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.
Couple more typos restructuring the state tuple
Co-authored-by: Kyle Daruwalla <daruwalla.k.public@icloud.com>
@DhairyaLGandhi I have rebased this locally, do you mind if I push it? |
I think I wanted to handle this separately. It also seems like some other changes were merged hastily? |
What do you mean handled separately? This has been in need of a rebase for months (any recent changes weren't the reason for preventing this from being merged). |
Mutation isn't the goal - so Handling the code duplication separately. Mutation should not be the default unless it is absolutely needed. The api change also needs to be accounted for. |
I am confused. Do you still want to merge this PR or not? All I want is to merge this PR. |
We can merge it when we need it. We'd prolly not make mutation the default though. |
Superseded by #31. |
No description provided.