You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Similar to #4, I'm adding a new attribute for ViewSchema and want to share the view() identifier name, so that all the parameters just live on the same level, but I can avoid repeating the shared attributes on both types. Using the same example from #4, what I would hope is for:
Yeah that sounds like a reasonable request. Initial idea would be that the AttributeParser gets a parse_one function, that parses one key(= value)? pair.
So in the attribute parsing step every field could do one parse. Designed right this could open the door for more advanced parsing e.g. nested structs as well.
I want to point out that while I still think it's a neat request, I've decided to keep the derive's using separate attributes for now -- it just felt a little weird thinking about how you'd split the implementations if you didn't want to ship the ViewSchema to the client, since it's primarily a server/local trait despite being defined in core.
So this feature isn't actually something I'd be using currently.
Similar to #4, I'm adding a new attribute for ViewSchema and want to share the
view()
identifier name, so that all the parameters just live on the same level, but I can avoid repeating the shared attributes on both types. Using the same example from #4, what I would hope is for:Should parse
#[attr(shared_key = "hi")]
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: