This gives a better NOTE error message when a privacy error is encountered with
a static method. Previously no note was emitted (due to lack of support), but
now a note is emitted indicating that the struct/enum itself is private.
Closes#13641
This gives a better NOTE error message when a privacy error is encountered with
a static method. Previously no note was emitted (due to lack of support), but
now a note is emitted indicating that the struct/enum itself is private.
Closes#13641
This removes the `priv` keyword from the language and removes private enum
variants as a result. The remaining use cases of private enum variants were all
updated to be a struct with one private field that is a private enum.
RFC: 0006-remove-priv
Closes#13535
This is a continuation of the work done in #13184 to make struct fields private
by default. This commit finishes RFC 4 by making all tuple structs have private
fields by default. Note that enum variants are not affected.
A tuple struct having a private field means that it cannot be matched on in a
pattern match (both refutable and irrefutable), and it also cannot have a value
specified to be constructed. Similarly to private fields, switching the type of
a private field in a tuple struct should be able to be done in a backwards
compatible way.
The one snag that I ran into which wasn't mentioned in the RFC is that this
commit also forbids taking the value of a tuple struct constructor. For example,
this code now fails to compile:
mod a {
pub struct A(int);
}
let a: fn(int) -> a::A = a::A; //~ ERROR: first field is private
Although no fields are bound in this example, it exposes implementation details
through the type itself. For this reason, taking the value of a struct
constructor with private fields is forbidden (outside the containing module).
RFC: 0004-private-fields
This commit switches privacy's checking of fields to have *all* fields be
private by default. This does not yet change tuple structs, this only affects
structs with named fields. The fallout of this change will follow shortly.
RFC: 0004-private-fields
cc #8122Closes#11809
This change is in preparation for #8122. Nothing is currently done with these
visibility qualifiers, they are just parsed and accepted by the compiler.
RFC: 0004-private-fields
There is a broader revision (that does this across the board) pending
in #12675, but that is awaiting the arrival of more data (to decide
whether to keep OptVec alive by using a non-Vec internally).
For this code, the representation of lifetime lists needs to be the
same in both ScopeChain and in the ast and ty structures. So it
seemed cleanest to just use `vec_ng::Vec`, now that it has a cheaper
empty representation than the current `vec` code.
This leverages the new hashing framework and hashmap implementation to provide a
much speedier hashing algorithm for node ids and def ids. The hash algorithm
used is currentl FNV hashing, but it's quite easy to swap out.
I originally implemented hashing as the identity function, but this actually
ended up in slowing down rustc compiling libstd from 8s to 13s. I would suspect
that this is a result of a large number of collisions.
With FNV hashing, we get these timings (compiling with --no-trans, in seconds):
| | before | after |
|-----------|---------:|--------:|
| libstd | 8.324 | 6.703 |
| stdtest | 47.674 | 46.857 |
| libsyntax | 9.918 | 8.400 |
These are types that are in exported type signatures, but are not
exported themselves, e.g.
struct Foo { ... }
pub fn bar() -> Foo { ... }
will warn about the Foo.
Such types are not listed in documentation, and cannot be named outside
the crate in which they are declared, which is very user-unfriendly.
cc #10573
These two containers are indeed collections, so their place is in
libcollections, not in libstd. There will always be a hash map as part of the
standard distribution of Rust, but by moving it out of the standard library it
makes libstd that much more portable to more platforms and environments.
This conveniently also removes the stuttering of 'std::hashmap::HashMap',
although 'collections::HashMap' is only one character shorter.
This patch replaces all `crate` usage with `krate` before introducing the
new keyword. This ensures that after introducing the keyword, there
won't be any compilation errors.
krate might not be the most expressive substitution for crate but it's a
very close abbreviation for it. `module` was already used in several
places already.
This was the original intention of the privacy of structs, and it was
erroneously implemented before. A pub struct will now have default-pub fields,
and a non-pub struct will have default-priv fields. This essentially brings
struct fields in line with enum variants in terms of inheriting visibility.
As usual, extraneous modifiers to visibility are disallowed depend on the case
that you're dealing with.
Closes#11522
NodeIds are sequential integers starting at zero, so we can achieve some
memory savings by just storing the items all in a line in a vector.
The occupancy for typical crates seems to be 75-80%, so we're already
more efficient than a HashMap (maximum occupancy 75%), not even counting
the extra book-keeping that HashMap does.
For `use` statements, this means disallowing qualifiers when in functions and
disallowing `priv` outside of functions.
For `extern mod` statements, this means disallowing everything everywhere. It
may have been envisioned for `pub extern mod foo` to be a thing, but it
currently doesn't do anything (resolve doesn't pick it up), so better to err on
the side of forwards-compatibility and forbid it entirely for now.
Closes#9957
If a reexport comes from a non-public module, then the documentation for the
reexport will be inlined into the module that exports it, but if the reexport is
targeted at a public type (like the prelude), then it is not inlined but rather
hyperlinked.
If a reexport comes from a non-public module, then the documentation for the
reexport will be inlined into the module that exports it, but if the reexport is
targeted at a public type (like the prelude), then it is not inlined but rather
hyperlinked.
The comments have more information as to why this is done, but the basic idea is
that finding an exported trait is actually a fairly difficult problem. The true
answer lies in whether a trait is ever referenced from another exported method,
and right now this kind of analysis doesn't exist, so the conservative answer of
"yes" is always returned to answer whether a trait is exported.
Closes#11224Closes#11225
