introduce into_py_with/into_py_with_ref for #[derive(IntoPyObject, IntoPyObjectRef)]
#4850
+277
−22
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…t, IntoPyObjectRef)]`
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This adds
#[pyo3(into_py_with = ..., into_py_with_ref = ...)]field options to the#[derive(IntoPyObject, IntoPyObjectRef)]derive macros as a complement to#[pyo3(from_py_with= ...)]of#[derive(FromPyObject)].This allows simple customization of the generated implementation, which allows (for example) the usage of the derive macro in cases where one or more fields do not implement
IntoPyObjectthemselves.One notable difference in the current implementation compared to
from_py_withis the type of the argument.from_py_withtakes it's argument via a string (mostly for historical reasons I believe),into_py_withtakes it directly as a path, which has the advantage that we get better IDE support (proper syntax highlighting and autocomplete). For consistency I would propose to switch overfrom_py_withto the path syntax in a followup.