Juhan Oskar Hennoste
Juhan Oskar Hennoste
> A breaking change in this crate splits the ecosystem due to its implementation of critical-section for single-core CPUs, so it causes everyone a lot of pain and must be...
> So, if we put out a breaking change release of cortex-m, there would be some PACs still using cortex-m 0.7 and anyone using those PACs would have to use...
Sure, but you said that any library had to choose between supporting 0.7 and 0.8 because they could not support both and any library updating to 0.8 would have to...
Isn't most of the API the same for 0.7 and 0.8? AFAIK there are only a handful of breaking changes in 0.8 and half of them are removals of already...
What's the latest on this? Is 0.7.8 coming out soon(ish)?
What exactly are the mutex/mutex-trait crates? I took a quick peek at them and they don't really seem to be used by anything in the ecosystem and are maintained under...
I guess it's a matter of taste. I personally like it because it allows me to have cleanup logic in the method body, close to the rest of the method...
It seems to be missing in every STM32 PAC I checked, so probably a limitation of the official SVD files.
If this goes ahead then I think it is worth considering if `close` should be exposed just on concrete types like `File` or maybe more generally through some kind of...
> Is there a portable use-case for a portable close API? I'm skeptical that there is any, due to the dearth of guarantees. For me a big part of portability...