Closed joshtriplett closed 1 year ago
Thanks for the PR. Unfortunately, if the user implements the same trait on both types, this is a breaking change.
(https://github.com/smol-rs/futures-lite/issues/35 is an issue to track this change.)
Given that this is a breaking change anyways, it doesn't really make sense to merge this because the user would need to manually fix their code anyways (given a corresponding bump of the crate version). So I'd reject this PR.
Given that this is a breaking change anyways, it doesn't really make sense to merge this because the user would need to manually fix their code anyways (given a corresponding bump of the crate version). So I'd reject this PR.
I'd agree with rejection.
This avoids having two versions of
pending
in programs that use both futures_lite and the version from std.