extensions: Expose NAME via reexport instead of const
#887
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
Now that hand-written extension wrappers are exposed as `mod`ules instead of `struct`s it is no longer needed to expose `NAME` as associated `const` when a more-concise `pub use` reexport will do.
MarijnS95
force-pushed
the
extensions-name-reexport
branch
from
24a2f8e to
291402c
Compare
Ralith
approved these changes
Mar 25, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Now that hand-written extension wrappers are exposed as
modules instead ofstructs it is no longer needed to exposeNAMEas associatedconstwhen a more-concisepub usereexport will do.I'm still ambivalent what to do about
NAME. Time and time again the question comes up why extensionXisn't available inash::extensions::, and we have to explain that this is only for hand-writen extensions for which no wrapepr has been written yet, or is more often than not a command-less extension that does not need a wrapper.Veterans will know that
ash::extensions::is only for those hand-written wrappers - andNAMEis re-exposed fromash::vk::there purely for convenience - but anyone else seems to expect all extensions to be available there. Not to mention that my extension lists in various apps look funky when mixed withash::extensions::XXX::name()andash::vk::XXXFn::name()(old 0.37 syntax).This was also brought up recently in different form (citation needed): why not combine the autogenerated
ExtensionFnwith the hand-written wrapper (effectively have the handwritten wrapper extend it)? Regardless of if/how/when we implement that, such an approach could also eliminate having multipleNAMEs in different places.