4 ms·
Hard agree. Is retrospect I think the model of Delphi, where you must assemble `manually` a `pkg` so you can export to the world should have been used instead.
by mamcx 2y ago
Hard agree. Is retrospect I think the model of Delphi, where you must assemble `manually` a `pkg` so you can export to the world should have been used instead.
It also have solved the problem where you ended doing a lot of `public` not because the logic dictated it, but as only way to share across crates.
It should have been all modules (even main.rs with mandatory `lib.rs` or whatever) and `crate` should have been a re-exported interface.
- steveklabnik 2y ago> Hard agree. Is retrospect I think the model of Delphi, where you must assemble `manually` a `pkg` so you can export to the world should have been used instead. Very very old Rust had "crate files" which were this https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/a8eeec1dbd7e06bc811e55c641b6c282807997a5/src/test/run-pass/native.rc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/a8eeec1dbd7e06bc811e5... .rc standing for "rust crate" There's pros and cons here. I'm of two minds.