-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Don't use nrow
arg in new_tibble()
calls
#1003
Conversation
We are unnecessarily repeating ourselves by doing this.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1003 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.26% 90.25% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 47 47
Lines 2682 2679 -3
==========================================
- Hits 2421 2418 -3
Misses 261 261
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 7283800 is merged into main:
Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation. |
This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if b64e331 is merged into main:
Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation. |
This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 3642e31 is merged into main:
Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation. |
nrow
arg in new_tibble()
callsnrow
arg in new_tibble()
calls
Thanks. I think initially you had to supply Tue length j that constructor, maybe not anymore. Is that still wip? |
Ah, I marked it WIP only because I didn't see much of a performance improvement so wasn't sure if this is worth a merge. |
nrow
arg in new_tibble()
callsnrow
arg in new_tibble()
calls
We are unnecessarily repeating ourselves by doing this.