Marco Ieni
Marco Ieni
> Does it make sense to rename this? Constructor is the name commonly used in rustlang for this from what I see around. It is common in cpp, too. >...
> As a general remark, I think the examples should also include the use of the thing that is implemented, and entries need to discuss the purpose (apart from this...
Yes, I agree with you. PRs are welcome :)
Ok, so basically our decision is to write this including also the content of the comment of pickfire, right? If you want to write it leave a comment!
> I wonder if we should write this? Or maybe we can just keep note of this while writing other examples? IMHO other examples should link to this idiom. Otherwise...
I removed this from "To do" in [Rust Patterns](https://github.com/rust-unofficial/patterns/projects/1) because it is blocked by upstream.
Having code examples in the markdown is super handy. I don't think it's worth it. What about extracting the code examples from markdown with a script, and run rustfmt on...
I think I would do it only immediately before moving the book under rust-lang. Implementing all the actions by ourselves means that we have to maintain them in the meantime....
Yeah, the problem with copy pasting is that you have to maintain it. From a security point of view, what's the difference with fixing the version of the github action...
> I don't understand that question, could you rephrase it please? Isn't copy pasting source code the same as [using a specific commit](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/creating-actions/about-custom-actions#using-a-commits-sha-for-release-management)?