Wrap generated flags types in a newtype#264
Closed
KodrAus wants to merge 7 commits intobitflags:mainfrom
Closed
Conversation
Member
Author
|
The current stumbling block now is how |
Closed
Member
Author
|
I'll close this one since things have moved along to the point that we may as well re-implement it. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Part of #262
This lets us support:
PartialOrd#155It introduces an internal unnamable type as the single field of a
BitFlagstype that holds all the trait implementations. So instead of us having to commit to implementing traits on your generated flags type, we can instead add them to this internal field type and you can choose to derive them on the flags type based on that implementation.Given an input like:
we'll generate code that looks something like:
Details
Note that this is a breaking change. You now can't access the
.bitsfield directly because there isn't one. You instead need to use.bits(). I've made this a newtype instead of a struct with a single named field so custom derives will treat it like its inner field, instead of like a struct.