Always RenameInOutputMod instead of #[rust_name] #784
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Previously we generated slightly simpler output by using `#[rust_name]` attributes on the cxx::bridge mod. With this change, we never do that and instead always perform any such renames with a `use` statement in the output set of mods. This simplifies our code, while making output more verbose; it is a prerequisite for a subsequent step towards solving #486.
adetaylor
force-pushed
the
never-use-rust-name-attribute
branch
from
6ab36e0 to
d080037
Compare
Because they don't take &self so that cxx doesn't consider them methods on the C++ side.
adetaylor
force-pushed
the
never-use-rust-name-attribute
branch
from
d080037 to
a4f9b51
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Previously we generated slightly simpler output by using
#[rust_name]attributes on the cxx::bridge mod. With this change,we never do that and instead always perform any such renames
with a
usestatement in the output set of mods.This simplifies our code, while making output more verbose;
it is a prerequisite for a subsequent step towards solving #486.