-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
Experiment: Relax lifetime requirements further #12
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Actually… things seem to be working fine with the latest commit? I'll need to come back to it with a much fresher mind to convince myself I'm not introducing unsoundness, that said 😄 |
Hmm so coming back to it today it does look safe to me. @touilleMan Can you confirm this looks safe to you too? If yes I'll just come back to it in a few day, self-review again and if it still looks good to me probably land 😄 |
…i.e. to-be-merged PR Ekleog/indexed-db#12)
…i.e. to-be-merged PR Ekleog/indexed-db#12)
…i.e. to-be-merged PR Ekleog/indexed-db#12)
…i.e. to-be-merged PR Ekleog/indexed-db#12)
@touilleMan I ended up giving up on also relaxing constraints on the version change transaction's closure 😢
If you're interested, you may want to look at the stage I had reached? With the introduction of the
ScopeCallback
I can reasonably safely extend the lifetimes, but now I'm hitting a weird rustc rejection that claims that my scope is not'static
, even though… AFAICTfn(&'a ()) -> &'a ()
should be'static
, but it's actually not 🤷