Austin Bonander
Austin Bonander
There was a fix PR opened in #1946 but I'm still waiting for response from the author.
From a UX perspective, 3 is the friendliest to IDEs because it can be done with `macro_rules!` macros (can even be built on top of 1). Number 2 would not...
I would think `name =` should be to say "use all the parameters from `DATABASE_URL` but change the database name to this". What about ```rust sqlx::database!(mod foo, name = "bar_test_db")...
`name` is really ambiguous anyway. What about ```rust sqlx::database!(mod = "foo", db = "bar") ```
Yeah, that could get messy.
@mehcode I just realized we were already talking about doing this a long time ago, potentially with allowing other configuration to the macros such as specifying type overrides https://github.com/launchbadge/sqlx/issues/121 We...
In talking about it, @mehcode and I settled on `sqlx::macros!()`, short and sweet.
Unfortunately, the whole idea with using `sqlx::macros!()` in two different modules so you could do, e.g. `foo::query!()` and `bar::query!()` isn't gonna work with `macro_rules!` as it exists in this day...
However, I'm also recalling some issues with macros-defining-macros where you want to use parameters from the outer macro invocation in the inner macro... things get weird. Maybe it's time to...
It's been put to an RFC now so it's still going to take a while to get merged and then stabilized, but it's nice to see that it's possible. It...