Closed nolanderc closed 3 months ago
I am wondering if this is a breaking change 🤔 Because it is not constraining more....
I am wondering if this is a breaking change 🤔 Because it is not constraining more....
It shouldn't be: any code which previously passed a FnMut closure will still compile as all FnMut closures also implement FnOnce.
Granted, this is a signature change, so if somebody passed the function pointer to another function foo(Database::put_reserved)
, where foo
had an FnMut bound on the write_value
parameter, this would no longer compile. So technically this is breaking, but I can’t think of why you would do something like that…
Ok, so we can call that a soft-breaking change, and therefore, it's allowed 🤭 Thank you. It will be released in v0.20.1, then.
Pull Request
Related issue
N/A
What does this PR do?
FnMut
withFnOnce
in allput_reserve_*
functions.FnMut
is needlessly restrictive; withFnOnce
we allow more functions to be used.PR checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
Thank you so much for contributing to Meilisearch!