Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Minor typos fix: "versionned" -> "versioned" #1

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Minor typos fix: "versionned" -> "versioned" #1

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -84,4 +84,4 @@ However, our experience in software engineering has shown that type-size matters

My hope with `stabby` comes in two flavors:
- Adoption in the Rust ecosystem: this is my least favorite option, but this would at least let people have a better time with Rust in situations where they need dynamic linkage.
- Triggering a discussion about providing not a stable, but versionned ABI for Rust: `stabby` essentially provides a versionned ABI already through the selected version of the `stabby-abi` crate. However, having a library implement type-layout, which is normally the compiler's job, forces abi-stability to be per-type explicit, instead of applicable to a whole compilation unit. In my opinion, a `abi = "1.xx"` (where `xx` would be a subset of `rustc`'s version that the compiler team is willing to support for a given amount of time) key in the cargo manifest would be a much better way to do this.
- Triggering a discussion about providing not a stable, but versioned ABI for Rust: `stabby` essentially provides a versioned ABI already through the selected version of the `stabby-abi` crate. However, having a library implement type-layout, which is normally the compiler's job, forces abi-stability to be per-type explicit, instead of applicable to a whole compilation unit. In my opinion, a `abi = "1.xx"` (where `xx` would be a subset of `rustc`'s version that the compiler team is willing to support for a given amount of time) key in the cargo manifest would be a much better way to do this.