Deprecate LexOrderingRef and LexRequirementRef
#13205
Closed
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
… `unwrap_or` to `unwrap_or_default`.
…LexOrdering and LexOrderingRef.
Co-authored-by: Berkay Şahin <[email protected]>
github-actions
bot
added
physical-expr
|
Will break this PR up to make it smaller |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Draft as it builds on #13146
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #.
Rationale for this change
Nnow that LexOrdering and LexRequirement are actual structs thanks to @ngli-me and @berkaysynnada on #13146, we can refer to their references as
&LexOrderingand&LexRequirementdirectly rather than going through a type alias.This is significantly less confusing than the current situation where we have both
LexOrderingandLexOrderingRefandLexRequirementandLexRequirementRefChanges:
LexRequirementRef&LexOrderingand&LexRequirementdirectlyWhat changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?