Simplify internal static references by using static closure functions #123
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
clue
changed the title
jsor
approved these changes
Jun 11, 2018
WyriHaximus
approved these changes
Jun 11, 2018
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 PR simplifies a fair bit of the logic implemented in #115, #116 and #117 by using inline static closure functions instead of creating static closure functions by moving their creation logic to static helper methods. This removes a fair bit of duplicate boilerplate code and makes the underlying concepts somewhat more obvious. This PR does not change any of its internal logic or memory behavior, so the public behavior and tests are not affected.
Invoking the benchmarking example from #113 shows that this has little effect on performance (1M invocations show a ~4% performance improvement). Likewise, memory consumption did not change noticeably (reduced by a few kilobytes).
Refs #115, #116, #117