Open ivanperez-keera opened 1 week ago
My intuition here would be to just remove the one in FRP.BearRiver
, or hide it in FRP.Yampa
and re-export FRP.BearRiver.Loop
from FRP.Yampa
.
Hi, I'd like to work on this issue. The second approach seems less likely to break the API, so I would perhaps go with that?
Great!
Yeah, let's go with the second approach. Can you please structure it this way?
FRP.Yampa.Loop
in FRP.Yampa
and hide FRP.BearRiver.loopPre
.Always reference the issue with . Refs #438.
at the end of the commit message summary, etc.
Do you think you can have it ready today? I need to have the next release ready tonight (EOB Pacific time).
I applied the changes in #441. The duplicate definition of loopPre
is removed and replaced by re-exports where required. Please check if I understood the task, then I will add a changelog entry.
Thanks! I responded in the PR.
The function
loopPre
is defined twice: once inFRP.BearRiver
, and once inFRP.BearRiver.Loop
. Only one definition should be needed.This prevents
FRP.BearRiver
from providing an API equivalent to Yampa's.