Cxx17 refac#4472
Closed
PastaPastaPasta wants to merge 11 commits into
Closed
Conversation
PastaPastaPasta
force-pushed
the
cxx17-refac
branch
from
September 30, 2021 06:52
7af0247 to
eda9afb
Compare
|
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
PastaPastaPasta
force-pushed
the
cxx17-refac
branch
2 times, most recently
from
October 2, 2021 06:44
7609e74 to
c62a67c
Compare
|
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
PastaPastaPasta
force-pushed
the
cxx17-refac
branch
2 times, most recently
from
October 12, 2021 00:11
bb01d4f to
0d7ca82
Compare
PastaPastaPasta
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 12, 2021 01:04
PastaPastaPasta
marked this pull request as draft
October 12, 2021 01:15
|
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
…not returning via ref params, and more!
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
Signed-off-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
PastaPastaPasta
force-pushed
the
cxx17-refac
branch
from
December 12, 2021 19:12
7e871ab to
ae188d4
Compare
|
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
|
This Pull Request may conflict if the Pull Requests below are merged first. #4650 |
2 tasks
Collaborator
PastaPastaPasta
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 19, 2023
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented This refactoring helps to make code more specific and clear. There's using syntax feature from modern C++ such as 'enum class', structure bindings in loops, declaration variables inside if/switch statements, etc. ## What was done? This PR is based on @PastaPastaPasta 's PR #4472 There excluded changes related to using std::optional. Let's decide firstly about `Result` class: #5109 ## How Has This Been Tested? Run unit/functional tests ## Breaking Changes No breaking changes ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone --------- Co-authored-by: Pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
ab4cus
pushed a commit
to ab4cus/e4Coin-core
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2026
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented This refactoring helps to make code more specific and clear. There's using syntax feature from modern C++ such as 'enum class', structure bindings in loops, declaration variables inside if/switch statements, etc. ## What was done? This PR is based on @PastaPastaPasta 's PR dashpay/dash#4472 There excluded changes related to using std::optional. Let's decide firstly about `Result` class: dashpay/dash#5109 ## How Has This Been Tested? Run unit/functional tests ## Breaking Changes No breaking changes ## Checklist: - [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone --------- Co-authored-by: Pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
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.
No description provided.