Move deprecation warning outside of include guards#22
Merged
christophfroehlich merged 1 commit intohumblefrom Mar 26, 2026
Merged
Move deprecation warning outside of include guards#22christophfroehlich merged 1 commit intohumblefrom
christophfroehlich merged 1 commit intohumblefrom
Conversation
Collaborator
Author
|
@otamachan am I right here? |
otamachan
approved these changes
Mar 25, 2026
Contributor
otamachan
left a comment
otamachan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, that's correct. LGTM!
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I was wondering why custom validators work at all on humble now, as we have merged the change in RSL but haven't redirected to the system header in cpp_polyfills on humble: There are two different versions of the tl_expected header now, and the first one wins:
Include guards prevent pulling a different implementation, but as the deprecation warning from #18 is inside the guards the deprecation warning will never be printed in this case.