Closed rvagg closed 2 years ago
Oh, sorry, I got my comparisons confused and misread the title as a statement of what is, not what will be (after the patch).
Yeah, a bitwidth of 1 should be possible. Let's fix the error message.
Fixed, and made a minor related doc fix while I was at it.
@Stebalien I think we can actually have a bitWidth of
1
for a branching factor of 2, so this might just be an exercise in making the error match the condition, or we could say that a branching factor of 2 is a little bit silly. But maybe that's not our place to say, if someone wants to make ridiculous trees.The message here could be something like
bitWidth must be at least 1 (branching factor of 2)
and leave the<1
, or change it to<=1
and saybitWidth must be at least 2 (branching factor of 4)
.Or we could just throw our hands in the air and say that
bitWidth
doesn't make as much sense for an AMT as it does for a HAMT and how about we just use "width" and drop this terminology that's going to be confusing to most users. We'd just make sure it's a power of 2 value so we can properly set thebitWidth
property in the encoded nodes, and hide that detail from users.