Fix warnings#33
Conversation
|
@codex review |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 4acfbb4c1a
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| control_points | ||
| |> Enum.with_index() | ||
| |> Enum.slice(0..-2) | ||
| |> Enum.slice(0..-2//1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This package still declares elixir: "~> 1.4" in mix.exs, and .travis.yml explicitly tests Elixir 1.4.5 through 1.9.4, but the new stepped-range syntax (..//) was added in later Elixir releases. As a result, users and CI jobs on the declared supported versions cannot even parse this file, so fixing the warning for newer Elixir versions currently breaks older supported environments.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removing the config file is fine. Two things need changes before this can merge, both noted inline. They come down to the same thing: the project still supports Elixir 1.4 and up (mix.exs says ~> 1.4, and the Travis matrix runs 1.4.5 through 1.9.4), so the fixes have to keep working on those versions.
Co-authored-by: Rodney Folz <github@rodneyfolz.com>
|
Looks great, accepted. Thank you for the PR! |
2 participants
Fixing some compiler warnings.
Mix.Configis deprecated. But the config file was empty, so rather than switching it toimport Config, I just removed the config file entirely.mod_inv/1with a float). Incidentally, that seems to be the whole purpose of the test in the first place; to prove that passing the wrong type will raise an error. So I believe the new typechecker should actually replace such tests in the future. The function already contains guards to ensure this in older versions.