Parametrize the type of DatatypeBuilder field names
#462
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
toolCHAINZ
requested changes
Nov 7, 2025
Member
toolCHAINZ
left a comment
toolCHAINZ
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the contribution! This does look better to me. I have one suggestion that might be worth trying but otherwise it looks good!
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi! I'm working with
DatatypeBuilders, and it'd be really nice if you could construct a variant's fields withVec<String, DatatypeAccessor>as well as the existingVec<&str, DatatypeAccessor>. Requiring string slices can be more restrictive, and unnecessarily so when thevariantfunction eventually just needs to call.to_string()on the slice anyways.I do realize that this now requires type annotations when calling
variantw/ no fields, which would make it a breaking change, so I'd appreciate feedback if you know of other ways to implement this which wouldn't break any existing code.