[rust-dev] A policy for impls
pwalton at mozilla.com
Sun Jul 22 11:29:16 PDT 2012
On 7/21/12 5:25 PM, Benjamin Striegel wrote:
> Is this a pattern that all the impls in the standard libraries ought to
> follow? Is there some value to being able to always refer to
> module::function() rather than type.method()? Assuming that #[inline] or
> #[inline(always)] remove any overhead, I don't think there's any
> downside to it other than cluttered docs.
I think it's mostly a backwards-compatibility thing. I'm in favor of
having the non-method versions go away.
More information about the Rust-dev