Inconsistent mutability between WriteChunkUninit::producer and ReadChunk::consumer

[RamType0]

WriteChunkUninit::producer is typed as &'a Producer<T>.
But ReadChunk::consumer is typed as &'a mut Consumer<T>.

With current code, switching their mutability never makes compiler error.
But inconsistent mutability between them seems to be weird.
So I think we should mark both of them as mut or both of them as not mut .

[mgeier]

Thanks, I'm trying to fix this in #81.

The mut is unnecessary because all mutation happens via Cell via interior mutability.

While looking at this, I also found out that two of the four Cell usages are not needed, see #80.

[RamType0]

Thanks, I'm trying to fix this in #81.

The mut is unnecessary because all mutation happens via Cell via interior mutability.

While looking at this, I also found out that two of the four Cell usages are not needed, see #80.

Do you know that #80 and #81 is conflicting?
You should mark both of chunk types as mut with #80.

[mgeier]

Do you know that #80 and #81 is conflicting?

No, I missed that, I was only looking at those two PRs separately and didn't realize that they are conflicting.

I've merged #81 and I've closed #80.

[RamType0]

Oh, did you take that one?
I think #80 was better.

[mgeier]

I think #80 was better.

I think this is a matter of taste, the generated machine code should be the same in both cases, right?

My argumentation for choosing #81 was:
I cannot get rid of all Cell instances, so why bother removing half of them?
And in case of doubt, immutable is better than mutable, isn't it?

Also, I haven't yet completely given up on #48, which would also not need &mut.

But if you have a good reason for #80, we can still make the change!