Don't use nrow arg in new_tibble() calls#1003
Don't use nrow arg in new_tibble() calls#1003IndrajeetPatil merged 4 commits intor-lib:mainfrom IndrajeetPatil:rm_unneeded_arg
nrow arg in new_tibble() calls#1003Conversation
We are unnecessarily repeating ourselves by doing this.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1003 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.26% 90.25% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 47 47
Lines 2682 2679 -3
==========================================
- Hits 2421 2418 -3
Misses 261 261
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
|
This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 7283800 is merged into main:
Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation. |
|
This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if b64e331 is merged into main:
Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation. |
|
This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 3642e31 is merged into main:
Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation. |
nrow arg in new_tibble() callsnrow arg in new_tibble() calls
|
Thanks. I think initially you had to supply Tue length j that constructor, maybe not anymore. Is that still wip? |
|
Ah, I marked it WIP only because I didn't see much of a performance improvement so wasn't sure if this is worth a merge. |
nrow arg in new_tibble() callsnrow arg in new_tibble() calls
We are unnecessarily repeating ourselves by doing this.