Merged
Conversation
gallais
approved these changes
Jan 30, 2026
JacquesCarette
approved these changes
Feb 3, 2026
Collaborator
Author
|
Thanks @JacquesCarette : any thoughts on subsequent inlinings in this module, or elsewhere? |
Collaborator
|
I think we should be sparing with our inlinings, and do them when someone actively notices that it is a hindrance. |
plt-amy
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 9, 2026
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 join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Only outstanding questions in my mind:
Function.Baseoperations, eg_⊛_inData.Vec.Functional?INLINEspecialised operations inTactic.RingSolver.Reasoningcould arguably be applied to their definitions inAlgebra.Structures, etc. and hence make the former obsolete?)