bespoke traits that could be replaced with standard traits

[danieleades]

i see some bespoke traits which are similar to standard library traits, I was hoping you could comment.

For example, there are ToU16 and FromU16 traits, which seem like they would map precisely to the standard library traits Into<u16> and TryFrom<u16, Error=capnp::NotInSchema> respectively. Is there a reason for not using the standard traits?

• [x] #336
• [ ] #337
• [ ] #340
• [ ] #355
• [ ] #349
• [x] #350
• [ ] #351

[danieleades]

incidentally, if i were to change the code generation for files like capnpc/src/schema_capnp.rs, how would I regenerate those files?

[dwrensha]

Using the standard Into and TryFrom traits makes sense to me. Probably ToU16 and FromU16 were created before the standard traits existed. Note, though, that replacing them would be a breaking change. So I suppose that's another thing that can go into the 0.16.0 release, whenever we do that.

[dwrensha]

incidentally, if i were to change the code generation for files like capnpc/src/schema_capnp.rs, how would I regenerate those files?

1. Get the the corresponding .capnp files from the main capnproto repo: https://github.com/capnproto/capnproto/blob/master/c%2B%2B/src/capnp/schema.capnp
2. build capnpc-rust with cargo build -p capnpc --release
3. run capnp compile -o./target/release/capnpc-rust [schema file]

[danieleades]

starting to collect a few breaking changes. how do you keep track? will you just leave this PR open?

[danieleades]

starting to collect a few breaking changes. how do you keep track? will you just leave the PR open?

[dwrensha]

We could add a "version bump" label for issues and PRs.

[danieleades]

@dwrensha I notice there's a huge number of structs with new_default constructors. Is there a reason for using this pattern over the built in Default trait?