Closed richardpringle closed 8 months ago
Looks good to me.
Out of pure interest, can you check if this actually improves any of the benchmarks?
Attention: 1 lines
in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.
Comparison is base (
ff7a45a
) 57.24% compared to head (4a77a75
) 57.24%.
Files | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
src/error.rs | 0.00% | 1 Missing :warning: |
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Looks good to me.
Out of pure interest, can you check if this actually improves any of the benchmarks?
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking. const
shouldn't change the behaviour at all, it will only make those functions available in const
context. In order to improve a benchmark, you would have to change the code at the call-site.
You should also be aware that removing const
from a pub const
function is a breaking change. Given the extensive use of the builder-pattern, this shouldn't be a concern, though.
I just used clippy for this. I actually assume that you will not want the brunt of this change but I figured it was easier to make the change everywhere then simply pick the ones you deem acceptable (if any).
I definitey think some of the constructors should be
const
.Thanks in advance!