Skip to content

Consider requiring all ULEs to be Copy #1184

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
2 tasks done
sffc opened this issue Oct 18, 2021 · 4 comments · Fixed by #1193
Closed
2 tasks done

Consider requiring all ULEs to be Copy #1184

sffc opened this issue Oct 18, 2021 · 4 comments · Fixed by #1193
Labels
C-data-infra Component: provider, datagen, fallback, adapters S-tiny Size: Less than an hour (trivial fixes) T-techdebt Type: ICU4X code health and tech debt
Milestone
ICU4X 0.4

Comments

@sffc
Copy link
Member

sffc commented Oct 18, 2021 •
edited by Manishearth
Loading

Part of #1082

We currently have the Copy bound on the impl ZeroVec. However, it may make more sense to move it to the trait ULE itself. I know there is a debate about when to put bounds on the impl and when to put them on the trait.

Motivating case: #[derive(Clone)] does not seem to work on structs containing a ZeroVec field. See e.g. #1161

Needs approval from:
@sffc sffc added C-data-infra Component: provider, datagen, fallback, adapters T-techdebt Type: ICU4X code health and tech debt S-tiny Size: Less than an hour (trivial fixes) needs-approval One or more stakeholders need to approve proposal labels Oct 18, 2021
@sffc sffc mentioned this issue Oct 18, 2021
Merged
@Manishearth
Copy link
Member

Yeah that works for me.

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member

The debate is usually for when T itself is being used, when an associated type is used then people need to bound on a trait anyway. ZeroVec already requires ULE on the definition (it has to!) so adding a bound to ULE seems fine

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member

Conceptually I think that AsULEs can also be Copy, and we can stop using references in their methods

@iainireland
Copy link
Contributor

Sounds good to me

This was referenced Oct 20, 2021
Merged
Closed
@Manishearth Manishearth added this to the ICU4X 0.4 milestone Oct 20, 2021
@Manishearth Manishearth mentioned this issue Nov 4, 2021
Closed
@sffc sffc removed the needs-approval One or more stakeholders need to approve proposal label Feb 17, 2022
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
C-data-infra Component: provider, datagen, fallback, adapters S-tiny Size: Less than an hour (trivial fixes) T-techdebt Type: ICU4X code health and tech debt
Projects
None yet
Milestone
ICU4X 0.4
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Make ULE types Copy, add PairULE Manishearth/icu4x
3 participants
@sffc @Manishearth @iainireland