remove Deref implementations for old "gil refs" types
#4593
Conversation
This file contains 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
davidhewitt
commented
Oct 4, 2024
Comment on lines
+277
to
279
| #[repr(transparent)] | ||
| #[allow(clippy::upper_case_acronyms)] | ||
| pub struct $name($crate::PyAny); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Without adding the #[repr] the types started raising dead code warnings for the contents never being read.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess an alternative would maybe be
#[non_exhaustive]
pub struct $name;But I'm not sure if there are subtle semver differences between these.
|
Yeah, it probably deserves a changelog entry. Targeting 0.24 seems fine to me. Do we want to add a milestone to track that? |
|
Good idea, milestone created, will leave this in draft until then I guess. |
3 tasks
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Follow-up on #4589 (comment)
I'm open to whether this needs a CHANGELOG entry... I guess it does because it can affect type bounds (e.g. as it does in this PR). Maybe that's a good reason to park this until 0.24 as a low-ish priority (breaking) change, that's easier the longer ago GIL Refs died.