-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.5k
Redox Scheme Path Prefix #51537
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
Closed
Closed
Redox Scheme Path Prefix #51537
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Adding this variant is a breaking change
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Understood, how should this be addressed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good question. The docs around
Prefix
imply that it's meant to be Windows-exclusive, so perhaps defining another type is the way to go? However, the only place wherePrefix
seems to be used is as part ofComponent
, which is also a fully public enum and can't be extended with another kind of prefix.It doesn't look like this part of the standard library was designed with this kind of extensibility in mind. Maybe in the next epoch the definition of
Prefix
could be changed (not sure if epochs allow these kinds of changes)?Alternatively, you could define a
std::os::redox::path::PathExt
trait that's implemented byPath
and allows access to the prefix. However, this does not allowPath::components
to work like it should...There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've also thought of that, but I don't think it would work (though I'd love to be corrected!). How would that work? I guess you would somehow change the version of the
Components
enum andcomponents()
function being used depending on the epoch. But what if code using it then tried to pass theComponents
to code in the older epoch? Though perhaps an unlikely use case for this particular struct, that probably shouldn't error complaining that the types are different, and couldn't work because the code it's passed to won't know how to deal with the new variant.