Remove prelude. #282
Merged
Remove prelude. #282
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
r? @ryankurte (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
This is missing a CHANGELOG.md entry |
|
Added changelog. to avoid conflicts this PR now depends on #280 |
therealprof
approved these changes
Jun 29, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
DEPENDS on #280
Following discussions in #280 #281, we might want to use the same method names for the
blockingandnb(and in the future,futures) trait flavors.In that case, importing the prelude guarantees naming conflicts, so it's better to remove it.
An alternative would be splitting the prelude in
blockingandnb. However, users often use blocking trait A and nonblocking trait B at the same time, so they'd end up importing both preludes and having name conflicts anyway.