feat: explicit conversion method implementations #1
Conversation
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
cdbrkfxrpt
force-pushed
the
flrn/towards-good-semantics
branch
from
de3f965 to
a997a5d
Compare
cdbrkfxrpt
force-pushed
the
flrn/towards-good-semantics
branch
from
a997a5d to
ffda508
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Following a convo with JG, I am planning to:
Option-like semantics onMaybeMultiple;Vec-like semantics onMultiple;Specifically, this means that I want methods implemented on
MaybeMultipleandMultipleto contribute to the reason why both of them exist, which is to make the semantics of a container that must contain at least two elements -Multiple- and an enumeration which can distinctively contain no elements, one element or multiple elements -MaybeMultiple- explicit in the type system. Implementing convenience conversion functions likeFrom<Vec<T>>onMaybeMultiple, for example, does the opposite of this: it makes the conversion explicit, but in code it will always just be a call to.into()and thus not really visible. Making the call aMaybeMultiple::collapse_vec_into(v)for turningv: Vecinto aMaybeMultipleseems a better choice. I hope to find others in the same vein, and I'd of course be thankful for second opinions.