Skip to content

BLOCKER: Clarify the role of entry_index, maybe rename #119

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

Closed
cuviper opened this issue Apr 9, 2020 · 0 comments · Fixed by #120
Closed

BLOCKER: Clarify the role of entry_index, maybe rename #119

cuviper opened this issue Apr 9, 2020 · 0 comments · Fixed by #120

Comments

@cuviper
Copy link
Member

cuviper commented Apr 9, 2020

Before we cut any new release, we should resolve the questions on the new entry_index.

@bluss #115 (comment) :

Wait - this method seems underspecified and surprising? Both the PR and the doc comment needs to explain in detail what it does.

The method should not be called entry_* when it is more similar to get_full than to entry. I can guess that the motivation for adding this is performance, just having a simpler return type than get_full, is not enough to warrant inclusion.

@cuviper #115 (comment) :

Yes, the main advantage I see is to avoid the indexing operation in get_full, which seems reasonable to me. The author originally called it get_index, which might be a better name, but that method already exists for using an index to get the key-value.

cc @Thermatix

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 a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant