CreepySkeleton
CreepySkeleton
First of all, I've managed to tweak my crate to work with both `proc_macro` and `proc_macro2` without any changes on your side. But yeah, I can't just stop depending on...
A dedicated feature was actually the first thing I thought about but decided that it would be quite a lame solution. You see, features are user facing, now more than...
> changing that requires a major version bump. This isn't true. Whether MSRV bump is a breaking change or not is a long-standing debate within the Rust community, and there's...
And this is why I said there's no consensus 🤷 I think the trend among Rust maintainers is to be conservative and don't bump MSRV without a _very good_ reason...
This change would be breaking if implemented after 3.0 is out, so triaging for 3.0
I must admit I like the "special option to autocomplete" approach *very* much, but I've also came up with a number of tricky questions. Let me summarize the prior discussion...
> instead of quoting the entire thing No quoting the _entire_ string here (we simply don't know what the string was with most shells). We pass the args array as...
Yes. I would expect all of the following to be valid invocations: ``` app pos1 pos2 app --option1=val app --option1 val pos2
Marking for `3.0` milestone because it would be breaking change
@bradwood Not as bad as you'd think: 2.x branch is frozen. I'd be really surprised if we change something regarding publicity of those fields because there is plenty of code...