Open gibbz00 opened 2 months ago
Partly a question if there's any reason why the API requires owned strings for constructors and such.
.add_scope(Scope::new("read".to_string())) .add_scope(Scope::new("write".to_string()))
Could then become:
.add_scope(Scope::new("read")) .add_scope(Scope::new("write"))
And the method signature would still make it clear that an allocation will take place.
This also applies to the oath2 crate.
oath2
See ramosbugs/oauth2-rs#248. I'd be open to the constructor methods accepting impl Into<String> in both crates for better ergonomics.
impl Into<String>
Cool cool :) Might take a look at it when I have the time.
Partly a question if there's any reason why the API requires owned strings for constructors and such.
Could then become:
And the method signature would still make it clear that an allocation will take place.
This also applies to the
oath2
crate.