I wanted to make these into separate PR's but apparently you can't have multiple commits in your fork and create separate PR's from them. Sorry about that. Fortunately two of these commits are really simple (only cleanups).
This is the const and comment-options that we talked about. I know that the const-feature isn't the exact implementation that we had discussed (it uses a flag instead of parses it from the type declaration). But I I think it's probably better if you handle the parsing. If you think that I should fix it, just let me know and I'll get on it.
The comment-feature isn't fully unit-tested, and I didn't throw it into one of the type libraries (only tried it locally on my type library) and it seems to work fine. Maybe I should add it to each of the different features that support it just so that the code is run?
Coverage remained the same at 0.0% when pulling 105aea2846e41a9bf9aed5f8e8c97a678ea2aedf on lundmark:master into fbbf9104d45c68fc2c5c7fb7e5346301373dec7b on wc-duck:master.
Hi,
I wanted to make these into separate PR's but apparently you can't have multiple commits in your fork and create separate PR's from them. Sorry about that. Fortunately two of these commits are really simple (only cleanups).
This is the const and comment-options that we talked about. I know that the const-feature isn't the exact implementation that we had discussed (it uses a flag instead of parses it from the type declaration). But I I think it's probably better if you handle the parsing. If you think that I should fix it, just let me know and I'll get on it.
The comment-feature isn't fully unit-tested, and I didn't throw it into one of the type libraries (only tried it locally on my type library) and it seems to work fine. Maybe I should add it to each of the different features that support it just so that the code is run?
Cheers, Simon