Skip to content

Conversation

@fox0
Copy link
Contributor

@fox0 fox0 commented Jan 5, 2026

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

@jgarzik jgarzik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hmm. this seems like (a) some unrelated lint changes and (b) a net negative for some of our code, vs just leaving it alone. I don't see the value...


macro_rules! read_iter_next {
($iter:expr, $ret:expr) => {
($iter:expr_2021, $ret:expr_2021) => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yuck :)

}
};
($iter:expr) => {
($iter:expr_2021) => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ditto. This makes me think we should stay on 2021.

.take(*self.last_field.borrow() - last_field)
{
(*field.get()).value = AwkValueVariant::UninitializedScalar;
unsafe {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hmmm

@fox0
Copy link
Contributor Author

fox0 commented Jan 8, 2026

hmm. this seems like (a) some unrelated lint changes and (b) a net negative for some of our code, vs just leaving it alone. I don't see the value...

It's only cargo fix --edition

@jgarzik
Copy link
Contributor

jgarzik commented Jan 9, 2026

It's only cargo fix --edition

Understood. I reviewed the code and don't see the value, sorry.

@jgarzik jgarzik closed this Jan 9, 2026
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants