3 ms·

what if there's no static function with that name?

• masklinn 4y ago
  There is since that's what you declared. impl Foo { // static fn foo() {} } impl Foo { // instance, owned fn foo(self) {} } impl Foo { // instance, borrowed fn foo(&self) {} } impl Foo { // instance, boxed fn foo(self: Box<Self>) {} } impl Foo { // instance, refcounted fn foo(self: Rc<Self>) {} }
  • optymizer 4y ago
    Again, what if there is no static declaration? impl Foo { // static fn foo() {} } Why would I need to use self to tell the compiler about an instance method? Surely the Rust compiler is smart enough to detect this case and complain if the call site is ambiguous.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • masklinn 4y ago
      > Again, what if there is no static declaration? So your suggestion is to remove static methods from the language? > Why would I need to use self to tell the compiler about an instance method? Surely the Rust compiler is smart enough to detect this case and complain if the call site is ambiguous. Detect what case? There is a dozen and eventually an infinite number of potential instance call ABIs. And the Rust compiler is generally very much on the “refuse to guess” side of the fence (hence no global type inference), so you have to tell it what it should expect, `self`, `&mut self`, and `&self` have rather different requirements, impacts, and capabilities to say nothing of the rest.
  • phaylon 4y ago
    Small nitpick: Fortunately, `Rc` and `Arc` actually don't require the nightly feature.
    • masklinn 4y ago
      Oh yeah you're right that's been stabilised, now that I'm thinking about it, it was probably something like `self: std::sync::MutexGuard<'_, Self>` which told me to enable the feature