Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add some missing flags and expose service handle #115
Add some missing flags and expose service handle #115
Changes from 3 commits
96bebe1
5a62522
ac81c43
ac85ec6
8b27267
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have a lot of to-raw exposure in this crate already, and we usually name the methods
to_raw
unless I have missed some places where we are inconsistent(?). Can you please follow the same naming convention?I also think this type of method should either be close to the top or bottom of methods, not somewhere in the middle. Please look at similar examples and try to be consistent with those (if we have a pattern? But I think we do).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I found a number of
to_raw
, but in this case, I changed it to mirror the underlyingraw_handle
. If you'd liketo_raw
, I can of course make that change!There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Private wrapper type
ScHandle
exposesraw_handle
but a lot of places useto_raw
. 🤷♂️There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would you like to switch it
to_raw
? I'm happy to do so if that's your preference!There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Personally I'd use
to_raw
to keep the interface homogeneous and familiar to consumers.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One could argue we should stop we the bespoke methods and just implement https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/os/windows/io/trait.IntoRawHandle.html for the relevant types instead. But that's not going to happen in this PR. For now I think we should just be consistent with what this library usually uses (
to_raw
)