Closed
Conversation
Member
|
NACK modifying UniValue here. Change it upstream or not at all, please. |
Contributor
Author
|
@luke-jr I know and will do (I've prefixed with |
Member
|
The fact that it requires changes to our code would imply the overloaded members aren't actually unnecessary...? |
Member
|
I don't think this makes sense, sorry. If we're not using the overloaded methods doesn't mean other clients of univalue don't, so that's not enough reason to remove them. |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Since
UniValueconstructors aren't markedexplicitthen these overloaded auxiliary members are unnecessary. This change also avoids some unnecessaryUniValuecopies.Related to #15974.