Generic structs not supported

[ISSOtm]

Hi! I'm trying to use modular_bitfield for an array of registers, which all follow the same format, but I'd like them to have different types.

Thus, I have written the following:

#[bitfield]
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq)]
/// C1MASKm – MASK REGISTER m, (m = 0 TO 31)
pub struct C1MASKm<const m: u8> {
    pub msid: B11,
    pub meid: B18,
    pub msid11: bool,
    pub mide: bool,
    #[skip]
    __: B1,
}

However, I get this:

error: encountered invalid generic bitfield struct
    --> src/register.rs:4000:1
     |
4000 | / #[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq)]
4001 | | /// C1MASKm – MASK REGISTER m, (m = 0 TO 31)
4002 | | pub struct C1MASKm<const m: u8> {
...    |
4007 | |     __: B1,
4008 | | }
     | |_^

...which appears to mean that only non-generic structs are supported. It would be nice if this was the case (by copying the struct's generic arguments & where constraints), but before I work on adding support, are there any obvious caveats or blockers?

Thanks!

[Robbepop]

This crate was designed and implemented long before Rust got its generic constant types. I cannot tell for sure how much work it would be to support this. Also this crate is currently unmaintained unfortunately.

[ISSOtm]

Well, I'm expecting an implementation to work on any generic type, by making the impls themselves generic; it shouldn't be much work, Generics::split_for_impl() does most of the heavy lifting already (example).

When you say it's unmaintained, do you mean you aren't planning on making any modifications yourself, or that you wouldn't merge an eventual PR? If the former, I'm willing to make the change myself.

[Robbepop]

Ideally someone would fork this crate and implement all the tons of feature requests that are already in the pipeline. If the fork is successful I'd totally support it by advertising it from this crate.

[ISSOtm]

I'm probably being nerd-sniped, but I also really want this feature... wouldn't co-maintaining the crate be easier?

[Robbepop]

I do not have the energy to maintain this crate at the moment. Otherwise I would do it since it is a pretty nice utility and of use to many people out there.

[Robbepop]

Maybe some day in the future I will have energy to maintain this crate again and will come back if there was not already a successor crate then.

[ISSOtm]

I understand, but I dislike forks—I'm not even sure how to name it—but if you don't have the energy to review PRs, then that's okay. I'll figure something out.