We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
That's not the only case in mind for `seq_linter()`:
microbenchmark(times=100, seq(1, 1e7), seq_len(1e7)) # Unit: nanoseconds # expr min lq mean median uq max neval cld # seq(1, 1e+07) 3640 3706 10314.14 3771.0 3901.0 633721 100 a # seq_len(1e+07) 121 150 862.12 161.5 220.5 67561 100 a
(I guess we don't cover that yet, but we should...)
Originally posted by @MichaelChirico in #2653 (comment)
This is somewhat a duplicate of #1927; including its own issue for emphasis given the above finding re: inefficiency of seq() for this case
seq()
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
seq_linter()
add efficiency case for seq_linter, see r-lib/lintr#2661
seq_linter
c817a17
No branches or pull requests
(I guess we don't cover that yet, but we should...)
Originally posted by @MichaelChirico in #2653 (comment)
This is somewhat a duplicate of #1927; including its own issue for emphasis given the above finding re: inefficiency of
seq()
for this caseThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: