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
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Feb 10, 2022. It is now read-only.
I think it would make sense for MapOption' API to be similar to the standard std::fs::OpenOptions by being an objects with methods for setting the different attributes instead of passing an array to MemoryMap constructor. Given the similarity in the names (and purposes) I would expect a similar API.
Of course it would break existing code but I think it's preferable to having a "non standard" API.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
I think it would make sense for
MapOption
' API to be similar to the standardstd::fs::OpenOptions
by being an objects with methods for setting the different attributes instead of passing an array toMemoryMap
constructor. Given the similarity in the names (and purposes) I would expect a similar API.Of course it would break existing code but I think it's preferable to having a "non standard" API.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: