Skip to content
New issue

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

Type safe bounds refactor #629

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 27, 2022
Merged

Conversation

maurolacy
Copy link
Contributor

@maurolacy maurolacy commented Jan 10, 2022

#627 follow-up. Refactored bounds-related stuff into its own module. This helps fix features, and so the no-iterator variant builds properly here.

Copy link
Contributor

@ueco-jb ueco-jb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As far as I can see, there are no changes of implementation, right?
Off you go, then.

@maurolacy
Copy link
Contributor Author

maurolacy commented Jan 10, 2022

Yes, I've put this into a different MR just for ease of reviewing.

Regarding #627, it only changes the range methods signature. And Bound is a different impl, of course. All the rest stays the same.
Then there are some additions / improvements, like the Bounder trait impls.
And some removals as well, like the now unneeded RawBound helpers.

Copy link
Contributor

@uint uint left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@maurolacy
Copy link
Contributor Author

maurolacy commented Jan 25, 2022

Thanks. Please review #627 when you find some time. I'm refraining to merge this on top to ease reviewing, but we can merge if you guys prefer.

@maurolacy maurolacy merged commit 50ca02c into 462-type-safe-bounds Jan 27, 2022
@maurolacy maurolacy deleted the 462-type-safe-bounds-2 branch January 27, 2022 20:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants