3 ms·

Yeah I can't see myself ever writing "crate struct Foo" or "crate use foo". :/

by ben0x539 8y ago

steveklabnik 8y ago
There’s no plans to remove pub(crate), so you can still use it if you like.
- chrismorgan 8y ago
  Reflecting on it months later, I’m more open to the rest of those changes (I was never against any of them, but I had reservations), but I’m still a bit baffled that bare `crate` as a visibility modifier, instead of `pub(crate)`, was approved. The rest has rationale, but that just doesn’t have compelling rationale (apart saying “this lets us forget about `pub(…)` syntax completely” counts), and met with quite a bit of resistance as well. I may still end up writing it if it goes out in that form; I’m not sure. Certainly removing the need for `extern crate` reduces the probability of confusion for developers old and new after the dust settles.
  - burntsushi 8y ago
    I think you also need to consider consistency with the fact that `crate` can be used to start paths local to the crate in Rust 2018. (I'm not bothered by these changes personally, but I'm not really bothered by the status quo either.)
- ben0x539 8y ago
  Plain `pub` was concise and local and simple. :<
  - steveklabnik 8y ago
    You can do that too! pub isn’t going away.
  - epage 8y ago
    I think I saw something about a lint for bare `pub` that isn't visible to the user. I think one of the intents is to make it easier to audit for what is publicly exposed and what isn't. Found it: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/45521 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/45521
    - ben0x539 8y ago
      Yeah, that's gonna be seriously annoying. :/
  - Rusky 8y ago
    Plain `pub` actually isn't quite local, and that's part of the confusion that `crate` is intended to address. There's also the confusion of looking at a `pub` declaration and not knowing whether or not it's visible to the parent module or visible to the world- at which point maybe you don't want a purely local visibility mechanism.
    - ben0x539 8y ago
      Nah it's extremely local, that's why everybody is mad at it
- epage 8y ago
  I never really thought about it before when seeing the proposals but when looking at the guide's sample code, I wonder if this decision is something we'll end up regretting. As it reads, it sounds like you are declaring something is a crate akin to `mod` which I can see being confusing for new users.
  - nixpulvis 8y ago
    I don't see it as a problem yet, `mod` still means submodule, and `crate` still means top level. The fact one is defining a new grouping structure and the other is defining visibility is slightly unfortunate, but probably not a huge deal.

Yeah I can't see myself ever writing "crate struct Foo" or "crate use foo". :/

steveklabnik 8y ago

There’s no plans to remove pub(crate), so you can still use it if you like.

chrismorgan 8y ago
Reflecting on it months later, I’m more open to the rest of those changes (I was never against any of them, but I had reservations), but I’m still a bit baffled that bare `crate` as a visibility modifier, instead of `pub(crate)`, was approved. The rest has rationale, but that just doesn’t have compelling rationale (apart saying “this lets us forget about `pub(…)` syntax completely” counts), and met with quite a bit of resistance as well. I may still end up writing it if it goes out in that form; I’m not sure. Certainly removing the need for `extern crate` reduces the probability of confusion for developers old and new after the dust settles.
- burntsushi 8y ago
  I think you also need to consider consistency with the fact that `crate` can be used to start paths local to the crate in Rust 2018. (I'm not bothered by these changes personally, but I'm not really bothered by the status quo either.)
ben0x539 8y ago
Plain `pub` was concise and local and simple. :<
- steveklabnik 8y ago
  You can do that too! pub isn’t going away.
- epage 8y ago
  I think I saw something about a lint for bare `pub` that isn't visible to the user. I think one of the intents is to make it easier to audit for what is publicly exposed and what isn't. Found it: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/45521 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/45521
  - ben0x539 8y ago
    Yeah, that's gonna be seriously annoying. :/
- Rusky 8y ago
  Plain `pub` actually isn't quite local, and that's part of the confusion that `crate` is intended to address. There's also the confusion of looking at a `pub` declaration and not knowing whether or not it's visible to the parent module or visible to the world- at which point maybe you don't want a purely local visibility mechanism.
  - ben0x539 8y ago
    Nah it's extremely local, that's why everybody is mad at it
epage 8y ago
I never really thought about it before when seeing the proposals but when looking at the guide's sample code, I wonder if this decision is something we'll end up regretting. As it reads, it sounds like you are declaring something is a crate akin to `mod` which I can see being confusing for new users.
- nixpulvis 8y ago
  I don't see it as a problem yet, `mod` still means submodule, and `crate` still means top level. The fact one is defining a new grouping structure and the other is defining visibility is slightly unfortunate, but probably not a huge deal.