Open radekvit opened 9 months ago
Why not just add the bounds on the generic when defining it?
#[derive(TypedBuilder)]
struct Generic<T: Default + Send + Sync> {
Because T doesn't necessarily have to have those bounds - they're only important if they're set.
Consider a bound MyCustomTrait
, where T can be either T: MyCustomTrait
, or ()
.
I'll only want to set the Option to Some when T is not (), and it needs to implement the trait.
Is there a way to add additional generics bounds on field setters?
This would help in cases where setting bounds in the
struct
definition is annoying (which is most of the time), but the structure only makes sense with specific trait bounds. In my use-case, I use()
as the alternative to aT: SomeTrait
, and only implement functionality forT: SomeTrait
. The setter is only useful in cases where theT
implements some additional traits.