Skip to content
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

Comparison to the fallible_collections crate #6

Closed
jschwe opened this issue Mar 9, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #7
Closed

Comparison to the fallible_collections crate #6

jschwe opened this issue Mar 9, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #7

Comments

@jschwe
Copy link

jschwe commented Mar 9, 2023

Hi,

I've been loosely following the vec_fallible_allocation RFC and saw you closed the RFC and published this crate.

I've previously encountered (but not used) the fallible_collections crate.
Would it be possible to add a section to the Readme comparing this crate with the fallible_collections crate (well, probably only the Vec portion of it). The exposed API seems to be quite similar, so I'm wondering what the main differences are.

@dpaoliello
Copy link
Contributor

Great idea!
I'll change the readme with more details, but to summarize: this crate is specifically designed for situations where #[cfg(no_global_oom_handling)] is enabled: other crates like fallible_collections won't work in those environments as they call methods like push in their implementations, which don't exist when that cfg is enabled.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants