[Proposal] AllBitsSet for Scalar #678
Closed
Conversation
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
WhiteBlackGoose
changed the title
Contributor
Author
|
Um, idk if it's a good idea to add it to an existing proposal... |
Member
|
I think this is small enough to just go in a PR directly. In the past we've modified historical proposals, but we all agreed in the 1.0 Preview era that this isn't really the purpose of them and just resulted in too much maintenance for the little things.
From the (somewhat outdated) proposals README |
Contributor
Author
|
I interpreted it as there's no need to create a new proposal document (so better to be added to old ones). 😄
So I can just make it public, no other actions needed? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Similarly to .NET 5's Vector64.AllBitsSet (and other bitnesses) I suggest adding
AllBitsSetpublic readonly field toScalar<T>.It is already implemented as
internalfield in #670 (so I propose making it public)