bendk
bendk
I've been thinking about this one off and on for a bit and "existing" seems like the best option to me, should we just go with that one?
Please nit-pick, I agree that the names are very important here. I just pushed some fixes/clarifications to the docs. I'm currently 50/50 on renaming `try_from_existing` to `try_into_custom`. What's your feeling...
It's great to hear a take coming from someone who hasn't been so deep in the weeds on this one. I'm going to try to rephrase it slightly, please tell...
If others like bridge type, that works for me.
We discussed this today, got some more clarity and came up with some decisions. I misunderstood part of Bastian's point. He's fine with "custom type" as a name, the issue...
Updated the language as describe above. I think this is maybe finally ready to land, tell me what you think.
> My suggestion would be to keep the `custom type` naming, but lean into the lifting and lowering metaphors, specifically use a `lowered` type instead of `builtin`: This is a...
I like the suggestion of going with `lower` and `lift` because IMO it lets is paint a better picture in the description. I updated the documentation to lean into this,...
We discussed this yesterday and there's general agreement to lean into the lower/lift terminology to describe this. I updated the PR to use `lower`/`try_lift` instead of `into_bridge_type`/`try_from_bridge_type`. I'd love to...
Merged some great updates to the docs from Mark and updated the changelog. Once this passes CI I'm going to hit the merge button.