[rust-dev] Why no "@Override" analogy?

Christoph Husse thesaint1987 at googlemail.com
Wed Jul 16 11:59:16 PDT 2014


This comment from "syntax::visit::Visitor" really gives me a headache:

/// If you want to ensure that your code handles every variant
/// explicitly, you need to override each method.  (And you also need
/// to monitor future changes to `Visitor` in case a new method with a
/// new default implementation gets introduced.)

I kindof thought we would have passed this :(.
"I" need to check for future changes :O? How? Closed source 3rd party,
just to name one example, or simply oversight. Okay, an IDE could warn
too. But we dont' have one right now and in the past it didn't seem
like this would have helped much.

What's the rationale behind this decision?

Why no: #[Impl] attribute or something?

Sry, if I bring up old discussions but it was kinda hard to come up
with a search term for this.


More information about the Rust-dev mailing list