-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 826
do we need NoArgs? #36
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Comments
If we add a impl<T: IntoPyTuple> IntoPyTuple for Option<T> {
fn into_tuple(self, py: Python) -> Py<PyTuple> {
match self {
Some(v) => v.into_tuple(py),
None => PyTuple::empty(py)
}
}
} We can use |
Super! Let's do that |
Unfortunately
|
What if you use NoArgs as |
Ah, nevermind |
is it possible to use default generic type parameter? |
I am not sure what you mean by |
default generic type parameter seems only allowed in type declaration now.
|
If we change fn call<A>(&self, args: A, kwargs: Option<&PyDict>) -> PyResult<&PyObjectRef>
where A: Into<Option<Py<PyTuple>>> Use should be able to pass impl<T> From<T> for Option<T> https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/core/option.rs.html#854-858 But that would require user to provide a |
I think it would reduce usability. i use |
we can play with associated types, similar to class protocols. but I am not sure if it could be implemented |
lets close this issue, |
it is possible to use
()
instead ofNoArgs
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: