Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
pnkfelix
commented
Jun 5, 2014
team decided this sounds like a fine idea, but we do not want to attempt to do it for 1.0 (and it is not necessary to do it for 1.0). Closing and Marking as Postponed. |
ghost
commented
Sep 4, 2014
If this gets implemented post 1.0, then we'll have to reintroduce the keyword |
erickt
commented
Sep 4, 2014
@tommit: that sounds reasonable to me. I always thought it was a little odd I didn't have to mark trait methods as being public, but I did on |
ghost
commented
Sep 4, 2014
Recently, I've run into two cases where I've wanted to use private trait items in the last month or two. Example 1I found myself wanting to provide a helper method that should be implemented by the trait Here, I wanted to have a WorkaroundIn this case, I just gave up and made it public, adding a warning. This is sub-optimal, IMO. Example 2In a very similar situation, I found myself wanting to provide a helper method for a trait's methods, Here, I wanted to have a WorkaroundIn this case, I made With those in mind, I advocate adding private trait items to Rust, perhaps in the form of PS: I wasn't sure where to put this, so please correct me if this is the wrong place :) |
No description provided.