Yes and no. It would help to improve things a bit when it comes the measure/reconciliation phase (unclear to say how much). However we've already done a pretty good job around batching writes vs reads.
However passing a million lines of code through pretext is unlikely to be very efficient, so a lot of the work around estimation is still very important.
That said, while I don't want to make pretext a direct dependency of the library, there's a good chance I'll explore the possibility of allowing devs to pass it in as an additional argument perhaps improve performance a bit.
It should also be noted that we have a full API to support things like line annotations (comments, etc) that are entirely controlled by the user, so there's always a bit of a dynamic aspect there that would come into play
Yes and no. It would help to improve things a bit when it comes the measure/reconciliation phase (unclear to say how much). However we've already done a pretty good job around batching writes vs reads.
However passing a million lines of code through pretext is unlikely to be very efficient, so a lot of the work around estimation is still very important.
That said, while I don't want to make pretext a direct dependency of the library, there's a good chance I'll explore the possibility of allowing devs to pass it in as an additional argument perhaps improve performance a bit.
It should also be noted that we have a full API to support things like line annotations (comments, etc) that are entirely controlled by the user, so there's always a bit of a dynamic aspect there that would come into play
Can you select and copy text with pretext?