Open
Conversation
camfairchild
approved these changes
Aug 30, 2023
Contributor
Author
|
Note: not sure why the |
Contributor
Edit: Nevermind. My bad |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The
print_exceptionwas throwing an exception since we were defining a named parameter out of order. I might be wrong in this one but afaik, when we are using named parameters, we need to respect their order, meaning that if we define the second named parameter of a function, the first one needs to be declared if it doesn't have a default value.In this case, the function signature of
print_exceptionis:Since we were defining the
valueparameter explicitly, we must defineetypeparam as well.The fix bellow defines the
etype,valueandtbimplicitly so this LOC doesn't throw more exceptions.Closes issue #145