chore: use Ordering.then in deriving Ord
#3893
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
!bench (just kidding, looks like I still need to ask for help on running the benchbot) |
github-actions
bot
added
the
toolchain-available
|
Here are the benchmark results for commit 1824527.Found no runs to compare against. |
nomeata
approved these changes
Apr 12, 2024
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This should improve the performance of the deriving a bit since it doesn't have to generate so many matchers. The main motivation though is to make it easier to prove properties about the expression by using more standard functions. The generated implementation should end up the same, since
Ordering.thenis@[macro_inline].