On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 03:20:04PM +0000, Tage Johansson wrote:
> On 8/2/2023 5:42 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >Here we're using markdown, I guess, but ocamldoc comments prefer to
> >use [ ... ] instead of ` ... ` (although we don't use ocamldoc really).
>
>
> But should [ ... ] (brackets) be used even for pseudo code? When I
> write `impl Handle {` I am just writing some pseudo Rust code which
> would make no sense for ocamldoc to interpret. So my strategy has
> been to use `...` (backticks) for pseudo code and [...] (brackets)
> for actual OCaml items.
With the proviso that we don't in fact use ocamldoc, there is an
ocamldoc markup for verbatim blocks:
{v
v}
but it's probably a bit too heavyweight to use in general comments.
I would just stick to whatever other parts of the code use and be
consistent with them.
> >>+version = "0.1.0"
> >If you wanted to (and it may or may not be a good idea) you could
> >include the actual version of libnbd here. You'd need to move
> >rust/Cargo.toml to rust/Cargo.toml.in and add an autoconf
> >AC_CONFIG_FILES directive to near the end of configure.in.
>
> I am not sure about this. I think most "wrapper crates" don't follow
> the exact same versioning as the library they are binding to. It
> would make it less flexible to make breaking changes to the Rust
> bindings alone without bumping Libnbd's version.
Sure, nbdkit rust bindings also use their own versioning scheme.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
nbdkit - Flexible, fast NBD server with plugins
https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/nbdkit
_______________________________________________
Libguestfs mailing list
Libguestfs@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libguestfs
