Closed antonilol closed 3 months ago
I am potentially open to #210 although I'd rather you just use std for that, but I'm not keen on adding new traits and entire new abstractions to byteorder
. I don't have any plans for major evolutions of byteorder
. Folks should probably build new crates if they want something different.
Okay I get that. Making new crates works, but my primary concern with it is libraries that currently use byteorder
, although making a trait like trait MyByteOrder: ByteOrder { ... }
probably works and allows users to continue using the marker types (and aliases) of this crate.
This will allow users to implement a trait (
FromToBuf
in my code example) for their own types (example: arbitrary size integer from a different crate or u256 from a cryptography crate) to get the same read/write behavior this crate already implements for standard lib types. In my code example I also added functions that use fixed size arrays (#210).Code example: (feel free to use)
https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=eaee11ad65f1938039191929d9575332