On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 08:50:52AM -0400, Benjamin Striegel wrote: > Are explicit `mod`s too heavyweight for this?
When I wrote the e-mail, I considered mods and rejected them, but now that I think about it some more, it is a tempting alternative. Downsides to mods (and counterpoints) are: - Rightward drift - could be addressed by changing indentation conventions - You are forced to use the mod when you call fn - maybe good - can often be avoided by `pub use` anyhow - More `use` statements - not such a big deal, maybe even good, since dependencies are more fine-grained - Doesn't apply to structs and impls of methods - you can declare substructs, and you can declare multiple `pub impl` declarations The last point about declaring substructs is actually particularly important for working happily within the borrow checker: that is, having all your fields grouped into one big struct is an active anti-pattern. Dividing your fields into substructs and declaring methods on those substructs is much more borrowck-friendly. (I plan to write a blog post on this at some point...) So maybe I'll try mods for a while and see how it feels. Niko _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
