Experiment with derive_more
#271
Open
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR simply replaces all manual implementation of
DerefandFromwith the derive_more::{From, Deref}` attribute macros.The purpose is not to say that this should be done, but it's more so a presentation on how it would look in practice. E.g. making it possibly easier to decide on whether a
44 insertions(+), 497 deletions(-)commit outweighs the con of introducing one more dependency. (All sub-dependencies are already used byserde.) I would be perfectly understanding if this PR gets rejected 😊(Commit placed on top of #268 because the concept could be applied there as well, not because it strictly depends on it.)