You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, Icmpv6Type is an enum with a bunch of variants, and a catch-all Unknown variant. Since it's not marked as non_exhaustive, adding new variants would break backwards compatibility. At the same time, it would be highly desirable to be able to add new variants, e.g. to cleanly support MLDv1 and MLDv2, which are subprotocols of ICMPv6.
What are your thoughts on breaking backwards compatibility? Since etherparse is still on 0.*, I think it would be legal from sem-ver perspective. It would be somewhat annoying to users, but it wouldn't be that hard to update the code; users should already have a match case to handle Unknown case, so they'd just need to adjust the pattern to capture both unknown, and also unsupported variants.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Currently,
Icmpv6Typeis an enum with a bunch of variants, and a catch-allUnknownvariant. Since it's not marked asnon_exhaustive, adding new variants would break backwards compatibility. At the same time, it would be highly desirable to be able to add new variants, e.g. to cleanly support MLDv1 and MLDv2, which are subprotocols of ICMPv6.What are your thoughts on breaking backwards compatibility? Since
etherparseis still on0.*, I think it would be legal from sem-ver perspective. It would be somewhat annoying to users, but it wouldn't be that hard to update the code; users should already have a match case to handleUnknowncase, so they'd just need to adjust the pattern to capture both unknown, and also unsupported variants.All reactions