Think we have an off-by-one bug somewhere in a codebase, but it's hidden in a 500 line match statement. So time to refactor this first. The only tricky part seems to be removing the `break` statements; do folks have a pattern for this? I'm thinking of using an enum Break<T>.
-
Show this thread
Argh no, ignore me. I had to write it down to figure out how to solve this. Long day, etc. etc. I just need to inline the logic past the match block (which is a single line) to *inside* the function. This replaces all breaks. If there's a "continue" stmnt needed we call direct.
9:41 AM - 25 Mar 2020
0 replies
0 retweets
3 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.