I'm not in favour making decision in IEx base on *@moduledoc false* or *@doc false.*
When someone uses them in a current project they won't be able to quickly check the module in IEx and has to enter the full module name or function name. I understand your needs. However strongly believe that using doc attributes is not a proper way. The intention of doc attributes is to provide document not "hiding" it from others. If it's decided to go on with this feature I recommend to use different macro(in compare to def and defmodule) or different module attribute. On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 7:12:06 AM UTC+1, Myron Marston wrote: > > I'm in favor of this proposal. In fact, I proposed something similar > awhile back: > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/elixir-lang-core/X18SZnSDW7U/LZm8_8PYBQAJ > > On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 4:12:11 AM UTC-8, Wojtek Mach wrote: >> >> (I tried sending below message to the list but is still doesn't show up >> so if it eventually does: sorry for dup!) >> >> There is already kind of a notion of protected module in Elixir: a module >> with `@moduledoc false`. Such module is e.g. not autocompleted in IEx. >> You're right however that all modules are globally accessible. >> >> I've recently encountered a SO answer [1] suggesting to use undocumented >> OTP :ram_file module and a prompt comment that since it's undocumented it >> *shouldn't* be depended upon. Thus, I think it's a good idea for xref to >> generate a warning in case of calling function from @moduledoc/@doc false >> outside of the OTP app. Especially if/when all BEAM languages store >> documentation chunks the same way. And of course, apply/3 is an escape >> hatch to silence the warning. >> >> I started looking into adding the warning into xref [2] and it looks >> pretty promising. One thing missing is my early implementation still emits >> warning for undocumented function even if it's inside the same OTP app - >> something I want to fix in the final version. >> >> [1] https://stackoverflow.com/a/22809265 >> [2] https://github.com/wojtekmach/elixir/tree/wm-xref-undocumented >> >> W dniu niedziela, 10 grudnia 2017 21:34:43 UTC+1 użytkownik Maciej >> Kaszubowski napisał: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> *What?* >>> >>> I would like to propose introducing a possibility to make a module >>> protected/private. Functions from such module would not be visible outside >>> of the OTP application they are defined in. >>> >>> *Why?* >>> >>> Currently, all modules included in the release are globally visible. >>> This makes it harder to enforce correct architectural boundaries because we >>> have no support from the compiler. We can only enforce the boundaries by >>> being careful or by running external scripts, but both solutions fall short >>> when the developers are under pressure or before deadlines. >>> >>> It would be nice if it was possible to create a module which can only be >>> accessed from the inside of a library/application where it's defined. We >>> have private functions, so it would be nice if we could do the same for >>> modules which are one abstraction level higher. This would allow to clearly >>> define a public interface for libraries/applications which would result in >>> better design. Since one of the recent Elixir goals is to help creating >>> maintainable software, I think this feature would be a really good step in >>> this direction. >>> >>> *Issues* >>> >>> Proposed behaviour could be problematic due to the fact that all Elixir >>> modules compile to Erlang modules which are all public. I came up with >>> three possible ways to handle this: >>> >>> 1. Compile all modules modules as usual (resulting in public Erlang >>> modules), but have Elixir compiler fail when the function from >>> private/protected module is called. >>> 2. Don't create Erlang modules from private/protected Elixir modules and >>> "copy" the functions to public modules that use them. >>> 3. Treat all modules are public and use mix xref task to validate this >>> behaviour outside of the compilation step. >>> >>> All of the solutions have advantages and disadvantages and maybe there >>> are some others which I didn't think of. >>> >>> I'll be happy to know what you think about this. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Maciej >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/2e4bf9cf-8d4b-4b74-b329-9e76bc209929%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
