Rename fields in BooleanBuffer for clarity #9039
Open
+74
−55
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
alamb
force-pushed
the
alamb/update_field_names
branch
from
8b30fd7 to
fe0d9b7
Compare
alamb
commented
Dec 23, 2025
| buffer: Buffer, | ||
| /// Offset in bits (not bytes) | ||
| offset: usize, | ||
| bit_offset: usize, |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the key change -- rename these fields
Jefffrey
approved these changes
Dec 24, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
@Jefffrey suggested renaming these fields would help make it even more clear that the offset and lengths in
BooleanBufferare in terms of bits (not bytes)What changes are included in this PR?
Update field names and improve some more comments
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?
No, this is internal field name and documentation changes only
I did consider deprecating
BooleanBuffer::lenand renaming it toBooleanBuffer::bit_lenand similarly for offset, but that seems overly aggressive for downstream consumers (they have to make changes for no obvious benefit 🤔 )