-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 654
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
NixPath -> NixString and Error -> Errno #230
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
0a16991
to
f6aaffc
Compare
Is the idea to drop |
Did @carllerche ever comment on #221? |
That's correct, and why I named the method |
dc64919
to
780ae21
Compare
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
pub trait ErrnoSentinel: Sized { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A bit of doc for this would be good. After reading I figured out it's how to determine if an error occurred or not from the return value.
Sorry for the delay! I'm commenting on #221 |
84c7fbb
to
593ede4
Compare
Doing some PR triage. This one's going to hang around a bit longer pending #221, I think! |
Hmmm, now this PR fails because Might have to use a build script to determine version features? I wonder if that would help for also replacing |
Well #238 hasn't been closed yet... we could discuss a bit in there? There's also some discussion on the users discourse instance which I'll link to on the other issue.
Not sure what you mean there? |
We could add some conditional compilation magic into nix_string.rs:
This is what the rustc_version crate is for. |
I was thinking about how to get further along with what this PR is trying to do. Let's break it down into a few stages:
I think we can get more people to weigh in on the changes if the PRs are smaller. We can also have more focused discussion of two individual changes. I also think it'll help because right now pretty much every merged PR will cause conflicts with this one, making it hard to land. |
I'm happy to help break it up if you like, just let me know! |
mm sorry was just testing on CI. It's probably something that should go in its own PR anyway.
However, we can land
This is a strange workflow to me since the intermediate state of the repo would be useless. I guess if we want to break it up I'd do it more like...
The last three seem like a single PR to me, breaking it up by module doesn't seem particularly productive as it's just a search-replace NixPath -> NixString. The feedback on that change won't be limited to any particular function or module, it's a fundamental change that raises the question: do we want to remove the stack allocation, copy, and path length check (thus delegating CString conversions to the caller) or not? Landing |
12ef980
to
c437533
Compare
c437533
to
1da348c
Compare
Rebased. The title still applies. |
Note that the |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #271) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Considering how old this is and how it looks like at least some of this was merged in #247, is there anything worth salvaging from this PR and someone willing to push this work forward? If not, let's go ahead and close this. |
The PR still applies, although I'm not sure whether any conclusions were come to re #221. I'm happy to help update/rebase if a particular design is agreed on as the best way forward. This particular PR makes every API call just |
Major API change, it passes on the responsibility of dealing with
CString
conversions to the caller. The error type is now justErrno
itself.Closes #221
cc @kamalmarhubi