Use FnOnce in with_*_from_context #333
Closed
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
All the callbacks are called no more than once. This reduces the requirements in the given input, i.e. allow more functions than before.
|
I'll play around with this on Sunday, but i can definitely replicate this in #331. It looks like the right move to me 😄 (although it doesn't really have a large impact for us at the moment) |
Merged
reuvenpo
added a commit
to reuvenpo/cosmwasm
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2020
|
The changes in this PR are also reflected in #331, so when it is merged, this can be closed. I also believe there shouldn't be any conflict between them, so we could also just merge this without too many issues. |
|
Thanks! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
All the callbacks are called no more than once. This reduces the requirements in the given input, i.e. allow more functions than before.
@reuvenpo can you have a look? This conflicts with #331 but should make sense independently.