Josh Stone comments

Results 817 comments of


                                            Josh Stone

clippy: `From` instead of `Into`.

(We'll eventually bump MSRV -- I just haven't made any specific plans yet...)

constifying in an nighlty branch or feature gate it? (with #[const_trait])

I suggest you just maintain such a branch in your own fork of the repo.

Symmetry for `Ratio::new_raw`

Sorry I missed this -- I think `into_raw` sounds like a fine addition.

`Option::as_`(`mut_`)`slice` and `::into_slice`

For reference, here's where the discussion started for `into_slice`: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/Option.3A.3Aas_slice/near/316374731 I still feel it's well motivated, since you can't go from `Option` to `&Option` to get `as_slice` methods -- but...

Why not `checked_pow` as a trait method

I think that's just historical -- it was added way back in rust-num/num#162, when `pow` was also still only a function, not yet a trait.

Change `impl Future for Either` to `Output = Either`

Is there a reason you're not using `futures::future::Either` for that?

Change `impl Future for Either` to `Output = Either`

Ah, note that `Future` is a re-export from `core`, and #77 already implemented that with a unified `Output`. I'm not sure why I did that -- probably just because that's...

Change `impl Future for Either` to `Output = Either`

> FWIW, a not unified output would have been more powerful because you can always call `into_inner` if they end up being the same type. It's not exactly equivalent --...

Change `impl Future for Either` to `Output = Either`

Oh, calling `into_inner` on the output, *after* polling/`await` -- yes that would work.

Change `impl Future for Either` to `Output = Either`

Sure, it wouldn't hurt to have a clean summary of proposed changes.