Non exhaustive

[RCasatta]

fix #21

on top of #22

[RCasatta]

It looks this cause trouble if downstream crates use

let conf = bitcoind::Conf {
            view_stdout: true,
            ..Default::default()
        };

error[E0639]: cannot create non-exhaustive struct using struct expression

[RCasatta]

Given that the syntax ....Default::default() it's not supported with non-exhaustive, so user's code should do something like:

let mut conf = bitcoind::Conf::default();
conf.view_stdout = true;

Is this desirable for end-users? Or it's better to not have this (and non_exhaustive) at the cost of breaking downstream when new parameters are added?

I think non_exhaustive is still desirable (maybe coupled with a builder pattern)
What @LeoComandini @LLFourn @rajarshimaitra think?

[LeoComandini]

utACK df37667, I think non_exhaustive is desirable

[Kixunil]

FYI from my experience for library users it's usually most convenient to use builder pattern which moves self. Although this is arguably annoying to implement. I think there's a proc macro for that.

I think it'd be perfect if either we could do non_exhaustive with ..Default::default() or have some sort of default constructor and then struct initialization syntax just overwrites the fields.