duke-git
feat: add BiMap for maputil
@idichekop , Hi idichekop. I noticed PR #328 and #329 are pending to open status. Do these two PRs meet the requirements for merging? I plan to release version v2.3.8 this Thursday (CST, October 16), which will include all changes made in the past three months.
@idichekop , Hi idichekop. I noticed PR #328 and #329 are pending to open status. Do these two PRs meet the requirements for merging? I plan to release version v2.3.8 this Thursday (CST, October 16), which will include all changes made in the past three months.
Hi Duke, there are no errors or bugs, but I really think the behavior of some functions (see above) could be less ambiguous. I am not sure that baiy agrees.
The suggestions I gave are still open, but I am ok if the decision is not to implement them. If there are good reasons for not implementing the suggestions it would be nice for me to know -- so I can learn the motivations behind. Check if you want to proceed or to ask Baiy for a further evaluation.
Hi Duke, there are no errors or bugs, but I really think the behavior of some functions (see above) could be less ambiguous. I am not sure that baiy agrees.
The suggestions I gave are still open, but I am ok if the decision is not to implement them. If there are good reasons for not implementing the suggestions it would be nice for me to know -- so I can learn the motivations behind. Check if you want to proceed or to ask Baiy for a further evaluation.
Hi idichekop, thanks for your detailed feedback and patience. After reviewing your suggestions again, I agree that optimizing the function behavior to make the input-output mapping clearer is necessary. It will effectively avoid confusion and improve code readability.