1553ee98ff
# Objective In #17905 we swapped to a named field on `ChildOf` to help resolve variable naming ambiguity of child vs parent (ex: `child_of.parent` clearly reads as "I am accessing the parent of the child_of relationship", whereas `child_of.0` is less clear). Unfortunately this has the side effect of making initialization less ideal. `ChildOf { parent }` reads just as well as `ChildOf(parent)`, but `ChildOf { parent: root }` doesn't read nearly as well as `ChildOf(root)`. ## Solution Move back to `ChildOf(pub Entity)` but add a `child_of.parent()` function and use it for all accesses. The downside here is that users are no longer "forced" to access the parent field with `parent` nomenclature, but I think this strikes the right balance. Take a look at the diff. I think the results provide strong evidence for this change. Initialization has the benefit of reading much better _and_ of taking up significantly less space, as many lines go from 3 to 1, and we're cutting out a bunch of syntax in some cases. Sadly I do think this should land in 0.16 as the cost of doing this _after_ the relationships migration is high. |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| mesh_picking | ||
| backend.rs | ||
| events.rs | ||
| hover.rs | ||
| input.rs | ||
| lib.rs | ||
| pointer.rs | ||
| window.rs | ||