Conversation
+ Added `big-requests` feature to manage this extension
|
Affected by #101. |
Antikyth
left a comment
Antikyth
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I haven't had a chance to look through this properly (i.e. when not super tired) yet - seems good to me overall, obviously implements the extension well. Pretty much just code style for readability is my suggestions right now, as well as a question regarding the dynamic major opcodes you discovered (tysm for that, that was a big oversight on my part! It was never mentioned in the core protocol I don't think).
|
(I removed the link to the issue there because, much to my surprise when I did the same thing in the past, that actually means that this PR will close that issue - it is really poor UX from GitHub, that is definitely not clear) |
Co-authored-by: Antikyth <104020300+Antikyth@users.noreply.github.com>
+ Renamed request and response
| derive_xrb! { | ||
| #[derive(Derivative, Debug, X11Size, Readable, Writable)] | ||
| #[derivative(Hash, PartialEq, Eq)] | ||
| pub struct EnableBigRequests: Request(0 /* TODO: extensions use dynamic major opcodes */) -> reply::EnableBigRequests {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not using the todo macro here, because it prevents the crate from compiling
|
I'll document this a bit later, and if i remember to do so |
|
Any idea what's causing the check failures? Looks like the macro isn't working? I can't remember where we left off with the macro and such. |
|
I missed this apparently ! |
2 participants
This adds support for the big request extension.