Skip to content
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

Clarify maintenance #55

Closed
ThatsNoMoon opened this issue Mar 1, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed

Clarify maintenance #55

ThatsNoMoon opened this issue Mar 1, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@ThatsNoMoon
Copy link

It seems like quick_error has fallen behind on modern rust idioms. Are you planning on updating this crate further? Maybe it would be prudent to suggest a more modern and maintained alternative like thiserror in the readme if not. Otherwise, issues like #42 and #48 are blockers for some users, myself included.

@tailhook
Copy link
Owner

tailhook commented Mar 3, 2021

Well, the point why people still use quick_error is for avoiding procedural macros (perhaps because procedural macros makes much longer to compile on cold cache), so #42 doesn't make sense. #48 probably can be fixed (I think it was a problem at the moment the issue was created as there was no vis qualifier). I'm not sure if fixing #48 requires bumping minimal supported rust version, though.

@ThatsNoMoon
Copy link
Author

That's reasonable.

I'm not sure if fixing #48 requires bumping minimal supported rust version, though.

If quick-error has a documented MSRV, it's not very discoverable. vis was added over 2 years ago, in Rust 1.30. It's unclear to me if that is more or less than what you want to support.

@tailhook
Copy link
Owner

tailhook commented Mar 9, 2021

If quick-error has a documented MSRV, it's not very discoverable. vis was added over 2 years ago, in Rust 1.30. It's unclear to me if that is more or less than what you want to support.

It's definitely >= 1.31 (first edition 2018) now. But yes, has to be more discoverable.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants