rust-embedded / rust-embedded/svd2rust
Does `config::Config` really have to be `#[non_exhaustive]`?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 857
- Forks
- 164
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
We're probably only user of svd2rust as library on the planet. However, since this appeared we're not only forced into ugly assignment of individual fields into mutable (like in atsams-rs/atsamx7x-pac#7), but we're stripped from builds failing on new configuration parameters we should consider.
What is the rationale behind prevention of use of struct expressions to instantiate a new config::Config?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by inspecting the definition and uses of config::Config, then read the issue discussion to understand the rationale for its #[non_exhaustive] annotation. Done means reaching and documenting a clear decision about whether struct expressions should be supported and what compatibility implications that decision has.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- tooling
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100