# Objective
- Contributes to #15460
## Solution
- Added `std` feature (enabled by default)
## Testing
- CI
- `cargo check -p bevy_reflect --no-default-features --target
"x86_64-unknown-none"`
- UEFI demo application runs with this branch of `bevy_reflect`,
allowing `derive(Reflect)`
## Notes
- The [`spin`](https://crates.io/crates/spin) crate has been included to
provide `RwLock` and `Once` (as an alternative to `OnceLock`) when the
`std` feature is not enabled. Another alternative may be more desirable,
please provide feedback if you have a strong opinion here!
- Certain items (`Box`, `String`, `ToString`) provided by `alloc` have
been added to `__macro_exports` as a way to avoid `alloc` vs `std`
namespacing. I'm personally quite annoyed that we can't rely on `alloc`
as a crate name in `std` environments within macros. I'd love an
alternative to my approach here, but I suspect it's the least-bad
option.
- I would've liked to have an `alloc` feature (for allocation-free
`bevy_reflect`), unfortunately, `erased_serde` unconditionally requires
access to `Box`. Maybe one day we could design around this, but for now
it just means `bevy_reflect` requires `alloc`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# Objective
Functions created into `DynamicFunction[Mut]` do not currently validate
the number of arguments they are given before calling the function.
I originally did this because I felt users would want to validate this
themselves in the function rather than have it be done
behind-the-scenes. I'm now realizing, however, that we could remove this
boilerplate and if users wanted to check again then they would still be
free to do so (it'd be more of a sanity check at that point).
## Solution
Automatically validate the number of arguments passed to
`DynamicFunction::call` and `DynamicFunctionMut::call[_once]`.
This is a pretty trivial change since we just need to compare the length
of the `ArgList` to the length of the `[ArgInfo]` in the function's
`FunctionInfo`.
I also ran the benchmarks just in case and saw no regression by doing
this.
## Testing
You can test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect --all-features
```
# Objective
One of the changes in #14704 made `DynamicFunction` effectively the same
as `DynamicClosure<'static>`. This change meant that the de facto
function type would likely be `DynamicClosure<'static>` instead of the
intended `DynamicFunction`, since the former is much more flexible.
We _could_ explore ways of making `DynamicFunction` implement `Copy`
using some unsafe code, but it likely wouldn't be worth it. And users
would likely still reach for the convenience of
`DynamicClosure<'static>` over the copy-ability of `DynamicFunction`.
The goal of this PR is to fix this confusion between the two types.
## Solution
Firstly, the `DynamicFunction` type was removed. Again, it was no
different than `DynamicClosure<'static>` so it wasn't a huge deal to
remove.
Secondly, `DynamicClosure<'env>` and `DynamicClosureMut<'env>` were
renamed to `DynamicFunction<'env>` and `DynamicFunctionMut<'env>`,
respectively.
Yes, we still ultimately kept the naming of `DynamicFunction`, but
changed its behavior to that of `DynamicClosure<'env>`. We need a term
to refer to both functions and closures, and "function" was the best
option.
[Originally](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1002362493634629796/1274091992162242710),
I was going to go with "callable" as the replacement term to encompass
both functions and closures (e.g. `DynamciCallable<'env>`). However, it
was
[suggested](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1002362493634629796/1274653581777047625)
by @SkiFire13 that the simpler "function" term could be used instead.
While "callable" is perhaps the better umbrella term—being truly
ambiguous over functions and closures— "function" is more familiar, used
more often, easier to discover, and is subjectively just
"better-sounding".
## Testing
Most changes are purely swapping type names or updating documentation,
but you can verify everything still works by running the following
command:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
