| 1 |
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:24:11 -0700 |
| 2 |
Georgy Yakovlev <gyakovlev@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Not sure if --features=default will activate default set and how it |
| 5 |
> will react to being passed along. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> --no-default-features --features default |
| 8 |
> IDK, looks kinda unnatural. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I have a feeling that we'll get more boilerplate if we pass |
| 11 |
> --no-default-features than if we don't. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> We can re-evaluate as time goes by, but for now I see no major benefit |
| 14 |
> and only downsides. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
One problem I stumbled onto is that while --no-default-features does |
| 17 |
work generically regardless of defined features, --features default |
| 18 |
does _NOT_ work generically, as it fails if there is no defined |
| 19 |
"default" feature. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Another is some crates simply don't work with --no-default-features, |
| 22 |
and they need --features=std or similar in order to work. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Hence, I don't think --no-default-features makes for a great default |
| 25 |
mechanism for rust. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Its something you should only reach for when you know better. |
Archives