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.

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

Re-add generic-array integration #100

Closed
Seeker14491 opened this issue Jul 9, 2018 · 3 comments · Fixed by #172
Closed

Re-add generic-array integration #100

Seeker14491 opened this issue Jul 9, 2018 · 3 comments · Fixed by #172

Comments

@Seeker14491
Copy link

Integration with the generic-array crate was added but then reverted with the following message:

- It can be added back later if needed
- A public dependency implies version coupling, and we can't afford to
  have it for a niche use case.

It's not clear to me what is meant by the version coupling problem; can we clarify?

@bluss
Copy link
Owner

bluss commented Jul 24, 2018

The plan is to go 1.0 with arrayvec, although as one can notice it's not progressing super fast.
The problem is the "public dependency" problem, and there should be lots of discussion about that on the Rust forums. To state it roughly, Arrayvec 1.0 can only depend on an 1.0 version of generic-array, or equivalent stable version.

@Seeker14491
Copy link
Author

Perhaps there could be an unstable Cargo feature added, which a user would have to opt-in to be able to access this functionality, as described here: rust-lang/api-guidelines#95

@bluss
Copy link
Owner

bluss commented Dec 3, 2018

With cargo's rename-dependency feature (Rust 1.31), we can have multiple versioned generic-array deps, so this is totally doable now. The problem is that Rust 1.31 is a bit too new a minimum Rust version still, and I don't know if we can conditionally enable this feature.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants