Skip to content

Conversation

@eirnym
Copy link

@eirnym eirnym commented Jul 31, 2025

Resolves #355

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
use std::thread;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please drop the extra example, we already have too many.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Other examples don't illustrate the feature. Could you please, provide the alternative?

pub(crate) draw_target: ProgressDrawTarget,
pub(crate) on_finish: ProgressFinish,
pub(crate) style: ProgressStyle,
pub(crate) finish_style: Option<ProgressStyle>,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Instead of adding more state, suggest adding a new variant to ProgressFinish instead.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Your way it will be way more complicated than it should to be.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see any reason why both styles should be stored in different places.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Semantically, finish style has more to do with ProgressFinish struct than BarState.

The whole job of ProgressFinish is to have all the information about what to do after progress is finished. I believe that finish style is part of that and not part of ProgressState

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe that this would complicate code which is already quite complicated.

If you still insist, I'd like to ask for a patch proposition.

@djc djc closed this Jan 9, 2026
@djc
Copy link
Member

djc commented Jan 9, 2026

Since you're not taking any feedback, I'll just close this.

@eirnym
Copy link
Author

eirnym commented Jan 9, 2026

@djc I expressed my concerns and asked for help. I don't know how it could be considered by not taking any feedback

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 this pull request may close these issues.

Different style for finish

3 participants