Closed Hofer-Julian closed 1 year ago
@Hofer-Julian The Clippy lint is unrelated, but could you fix it nevertheless by explicitly allowing the lint? (We want to test this case even if we do not need a Vec
to store 1, 2 and 3.)
Couldn't test it easily locally. Let's see if this does the trick.
Thanks!
These lifetimes are on purpose, see also https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/lints/listing/allowed-by-default.html#elided-lifetimes-in-paths . Can this PR be reverted?
These lifetimes are on purpose, see also https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/lints/listing/allowed-by-default.html#elided-lifetimes-in-paths . Can this PR be reverted?
While I see their value as documentation I am also not particularly keen on having them (i.e. I did not enable the lint). Do you see any functional issues with removing them?
(Reverting is obviously technically possible, but I am just not invested one way or the other. If we do revert because we really want the lifetimes, we should probably enable the lint though.)
I don't actually care that much because I don't feel that strongly about rust-numpy but I enabled that lint in pyo3 because I've seen many newbies struggle because of hidden lifetimes parameters. My preference is to enable that lint everywhere.
It seems like none of these annotations are necessary. After removing them, everything still compiles and works as expected.