Remove unused update and merge implementations from Aggregates and supporting ScalarValue arithmetic
#1550
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Thank you @alamb for cleaning things up. |
houqp
approved these changes
Jan 12, 2022
Dandandan
approved these changes
Jan 13, 2022
|
Nice cleanup! @alamb |
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Re #1549
Rationale for this change
All of this code is unused but that is very unobvious
For aggregates, only
update_batchandmerge_batchare needed. The extra implementation in terms ofScalarValues is never called.What changes are included in this PR?
updateandmergeoperations on ScalarsScalarValue::sum,ScalarValue::divandScalarValue::multhat were added in Addstddevandvariance#1525Accumulatortrait (but will also be a backwards incompatible PR change so I want to have that discussion separately)Are there any user-facing changes?
No