Implement the encoder's `TiffValue` trait for the tags commonly defined
and represented as separate types in our own code. We don't tie the
tag for an entry of these to the value type (yet). This lets us keep the
trait exactly as-is and we avoid unnecessary churn. We can always add a
separate trait on top.
We have a fundamental choice here: We could add more proxy
implementations for `Vec` and `Box` to follow `&'_ T`, for some types
that indirections is clear. Vec and arrays are also both very natural
ways of expressing a repeated value. However, passing an allocated value
to the interface forces us to drop it inside. We might be able to
utilize the allocation for an in-place byteswap in a future increment
but not with the current design.
So, overall, I think that inherently `Drop`-y types should be avoided in
these implementations. Instead, we can use the amazing diagnostic tools
in the compiler to just help the users navigate the type system. We can
still provide the impl for arrays.
For context, see: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/what-type-is-u16/137395
Now they see:
|
38 | .write_tag(tiff::tags::Tag::GeoKeyDirectoryTag, &geokey);
| ^^^^^^ the trait `TiffValue` is not implemented for `&Vec<u16>`
|
= note: the trait is implemented for primitive types (`u8`, `i16`, `f32`, etc.)
= note: the trait is implemented for shared references to values
= note: the trait is implemented for slices, pass them by reference (e.g. `&[u8]`)
= note: the trait is implemented for arrays if it is implemented for a slice
= note: values in a `Vec` or `Box` should be dereferenced, e.g. `&vec[..]`
= help: the following other types implement trait `TiffValue`:
Previously the compiler would both strip the `&` in its first message
(due to our forwarding impl) and not list any way of getting a
reference-to-slice.
Sergey "Shnatsel" Davidoff