Although 'Component' can be implemented traditionally, it is irritating if this has to be done for some types of storage and not for others. This also means additional work, which the derive macro is designed to avoid from the outset.
Drawbacks
None
Is it a breaking change?
No - it is not
Can it impact performance, learnability, etc?
No - I would actually argue, it implements expected behaviour.
Unresolved questions
None
I asked about this on gitter, and will create a pull request, which 'fixes' this request.
Hi and thanks for specs.
Description
Currently it is not possible to specify a storage type with specs-derive that expects special generics. This is because specs-derive assumes
<Self>
https://github.com/amethyst/specs/blob/708c3ac436e9cad285babd61caf54fa15a0edace/specs-derive/src/lib.rs#L73 and this cannot be overwritten. It should be possible to specify other generics.Motivation
It is currently not possible to specify e.g.
FlaggedStorage
with the 'storage' macro.Although 'Component' can be implemented traditionally, it is irritating if this has to be done for some types of storage and not for others. This also means additional work, which the derive macro is designed to avoid from the outset.
Drawbacks
None
Unresolved questions
None
I asked about this on gitter, and will create a pull request, which 'fixes' this request.
-ClaasJG