types: Implement generic encoder functions #170
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Adds
EncodeSlice,EncodeSliceCast,EncodeSliceFn, and their decoder counterparts, as well asCastmethods for increased type safety. This makes most encoding methods more succinct, but the real motivation was that it allows us to centralized the handling of malicious slice lengths (see discussion on #166). I will grudgingly admit that generics solved a real problem here. 😝I'm not crazy about the API; it would be nicer if we could somehow unify these three functions, and if we could ditch the
Castmethods. I explored replacingEncodeSliceFnwith aBasicEncodabletype (wrappinguint64,bool, etc.), but it was kinda gross, requiring a run-time type-switch on every encode call.I ran one manual benchmark to see whether this had a big performance impact, and it looked ok. We should benchmark it more thoroughly though.