How open are you to code-refactoring Pull Requests?

[tcoyvwac]

Hi there @vitoplantamura , love your project a lot! :smile:

As titled, I wanted to contribute and send some Pull Requests, however I am slightly unsure due to the unique design of your codebase.

Most of my Pull Requests are about standardising C++ projects. To list some examples, creating some more defined translation units, so header files and source files. This means extracting code-fragments and elements into a more modular translation-unit design instead of maybe currently "onnxstream.{cpp,h}" hoarding all-the-things :smiling_face_with_tear: . This more modular aim would help a lot in compile times of the project, as well as making the line-border between "library code" / "application-client" code much more clearer + cleaner. This will also mean Pull Requests will be adding more "functions" to break up and clearer define some longer pieces of your code, as well as adding some extra namespacing, data types and use of already-in-the-standard C++ library code to reduce the size of the OnnxStream codebase quite a bit.

You have done a lot @vitoplantamura to create and maintain OnnxStream and it seems that you have a really awesome development flow right now! I can kinda see how this codebase grew and was built into its unique form currently, and as I am a fan of the project, I don't want to slow your flow down, yet want to make OnnxStream more standardised for other C++ / software developer fans (like me!) of your project!

Do you have any restrictions or issues with any codebase refactoring to OnnxStream? Or any suggestions before filing any Pull Requests to refactor some of your project's code?

Thanks for reading @vitoplantamura and to all your upcoming updates, cheers! :partying_face: