ExactlyOneError: prettier Debug implementation
#861
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
It could be derived. It apparently was decided not to in rust-itertools#484, probably to not leak implementation details that could confuse the user. However, it would not render well for pretty formats such as `"{:#?}"`. I think we should call methods on `f` instead of using `write!`.
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #861 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 93.43% 93.48% +0.05%
==========================================
Files 48 48
Lines 6778 6774 -4
==========================================
Hits 6333 6333
+ Misses 445 441 -4 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
jswrenn
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2024
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It could be derived. It was, and it apparently was decided not to in #484, probably to not leak implementation details that could confuse the user. However, it would not render well for pretty formats such as
"{:#?}". I think we should call methods onfinstead of usingwrite!. Then it can be both pretty and helpful to the user.