Given the proposed privacy resolution rules (
https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/8215#issuecomment-24762188 )
there exists a concept of crate-scope for items: these can be used
within the implementation of the crate, but are inaccessible from other
crates. This is easy to do by introducing a private module:
mod private
{
pub fn crate_scoped_fn();
pub trait CrateScopedTrait;
pub struct CrateScopedStruct;
}
It's not clear to me whether or not this is possible (or whether it
should be) for non-trait implementations. Right now, if I do this:
pub struct S;
mod private
{
impl super::S
{
pub fn new() -> super::S { super::S }
pub fn crate_local_api(&self) -> {}
}
}
I find that the associated function can't be used at all within a crate
or cross crate (issue #9584), while the method resolves in both cases,
but does not link cross-crate. What should happen in this case? I'd
prefer for the function and method to resolve within a crate, but not
cross crate.
Notably, this is not how trait implementations work today, as those are
resolved by looking at the location/privacy of the trait and not the
implementation. I think crate-scoped methods and associated functions
are very useful though, and it's worthwhile to have a different rule
for them.
Or maybe there should be an explicit keyword for the crate scope and
not bother with these bizarre privacy rules. Or maybe I am missing an
alternate way to accomplish this?
-SL
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
