You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Now that #15 is adding a py: Python argument to almost every function, we should pick a consistent position for that argument.
Beginning: fn(Python, ...)
End: fn(..., Python)
Calls seem more readable to me in the beginning position: some_method(py, nested_call(py, long, argument, list))
vs. some_method(nested_call(long, argument, list, py), py)
If we want the non-CopyPython token, and use the beginning position, nested calls will fail to compile with Rust's current reborrowing semantics. This might or might not be fixed in a future Rust version.
However, there are good reasons for Python to remain Copy, so I think the beginning position is the correct choice.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Now that #15 is adding a
py: Python
argument to almost every function, we should pick a consistent position for that argument.Beginning:
fn(Python, ...)
End:
fn(..., Python)
Calls seem more readable to me in the beginning position:
some_method(py, nested_call(py, long, argument, list))
vs.
some_method(nested_call(long, argument, list, py), py)
If we want the non-
Copy
Python
token, and use the beginning position, nested calls will fail to compile with Rust's current reborrowing semantics. This might or might not be fixed in a future Rust version.However, there are good reasons for
Python
to remainCopy
, so I think the beginning position is the correct choice.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: