bitcoin: Remove "std" feature from examples#2856
Merged
apoelstra merged 1 commit intorust-bitcoin:masterfrom Jun 12, 2024
Merged
bitcoin: Remove "std" feature from examples#2856apoelstra merged 1 commit intorust-bitcoin:masterfrom
apoelstra merged 1 commit intorust-bitcoin:masterfrom
Conversation
The "rand-std" feature enables "std" but we use it in examples still. FTR I added this a while ago thinking the explicitness was clearer but in hindsight I think that was wrong and that it makes usage of our features _less_ clear. No logic changes.
Member
Author
|
cc @storopoli because he told me this was wrong at the time. |
Member
Author
|
Less cake for you! |
apoelstra
approved these changes
Jun 11, 2024
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The "rand-std" feature enables "std" but we use it in examples still. FTR I added this a while ago thinking the explicitness was clearer but in hindsight I think that was wrong and that it makes usage of our features less clear.
No logic changes.
(Pulled out of #2756.)