Separate recursive solver #546
Merged
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
jackh726
requested changes
Jul 1, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks great :)
A few comments. But otherwise, we should also make sure to update the book and double check that publishing chalk-recursive will be fine. And I would like at least a quick review/okay from another person, since I wrote the first commit. @nikomatsakis?
nikomatsakis
approved these changes
Jul 1, 2020
| where | ||
| I: Interner, | ||
| S: Solver<I>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we possibly make this use a dyn trait? I think I'd prefer that to keep the generics under control.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But I'd be happy to consider all that as follow-up work
| pub enum SolverImpl { | ||
| Slg(SLGSolverImpl<ChalkIr>), | ||
| Recursive(RecursiveSolverImpl<ChalkIr>), | ||
| } |
|
I'm good to merge when @jackh726 is |
zaharidichev
force-pushed
the
zd/separate-rec-solver
branch
from
5cf6876 to
b3233f2
Compare
zaharidichev
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Zahari Dichev <zaharidichev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Zahari Dichev <zaharidichev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Zahari Dichev <zaharidichev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Zahari Dichev <zaharidichev@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Zahari Dichev <zaharidichev@gmail.com>
zaharidichev
force-pushed
the
zd/separate-rec-solver
branch
from
b3233f2 to
a414412
Compare
|
Oops seems like I need to move some tests around, hence the build failure |
|
@zaharidichev I fixed it :) Let me do one more quick review then I'll probably merge this. |
jackh726
approved these changes
Jul 7, 2020
This was referenced Jul 9, 2020
Merged
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.
This PR builds on top of the work that @jackh726 did in #542 and separates the recursive solver into its own crate that depends on chalk_solve. This is just a WIP to get a sanity check whether it is heading in the right direction.
One of the questions I have is whether we actually want to limit the API surface are of the recursive solver and chalk engine as much as possible or this is not a goal.
Namely, is saying that the only thing that the recursive solver crate needs to export is
RecursiveSolverImpl?