Tracking Issue for Restrictions · Issue #105077 · rust-lang/rust (original) (raw)

Skip to content

Navigation Menu

• • GitHub Copilot Write better code with AI
  • GitHub Advanced Security Find and fix vulnerabilities
  • Actions Automate any workflow
  • Codespaces Instant dev environments
  • Issues Plan and track work
  • Code Review Manage code changes
  • Discussions Collaborate outside of code
  • Code Search Find more, search less
• Explore
  • Learning Pathways
  • Events & Webinars
  • Ebooks & Whitepapers
  • Customer Stories
  • Partners
  • Executive Insights
• • GitHub Sponsors Fund open source developers
  • The ReadME Project GitHub community articles
• • Enterprise platform AI-powered developer platform
• Pricing

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up

Description

This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Restrictions" (rust-lang/rfcs#3323).
The feature gates for the issue are:

• #![feature(impl_restriction)]
• #![feature(mut_restriction)]

About tracking issues

Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation.
They are also used as hubs connecting to other relevant issues, e.g., bugs or open design questions.
A tracking issue is however not meant for large scale discussion, questions, or bug reports about a feature.
Instead, open a dedicated issue for the specific matter and add the relevant feature gate label.

Steps

• Implement the RFC (@jhpratt has a branch in progress)
• Adjust documentation (see instructions on rustc-dev-guide)
• Stabilization PR (see instructions on rustc-dev-guide)

Unresolved Questions

• Should a simpler syntax be provided for common cases? For instance, sealed or readonly. A
  different syntax altogether could be used as well.
  • Also see Restrictions rfcs#3323 (comment).
• Should an "unnecessary restriction" lint be introduced? It would fire when the restriction is as
  strict or less strict than the visibility. This warning could also be used for pub(self).
  • Does this necessarily have to be decided as part of this RFC?
• How will restrictions work with macro_rules! matchers? There is currently a vis matcher, but
  it is likely unwise to add a new matcher for each restriction.
  • The proposed syntax cannot be added to the vis matcher, as it does not current restrict the
    tokens that can follow. For this reason, it could break existing code, such as the following
    example.
    macro_rules! foo {
    ($v:vis impl(crate) trait Foo) => {}
    }
    foo!(pub impl(crate) trait Foo);
  • A restriction matcher could work, but restrictions are not the same everywhere.
  • mut_restriction and impl_restriction are relatively long.
• What is the interaction between stability and restrictions?
  • Suggestion: Visibility is an inherent part of the item; restrictions should be as well. Metadata
    can be added in the future indicating when an item had its restriction lifted, if applicable.
    The design for this is left to the language team as necessary. A decision does not need to be
    made prior to stabilization, as stability attributes are not stable in their own right.
• Should the in syntax be permitted for restrictions? Including it is consistent with the existing
  syntax for visibility. Further, the lack of inclusion would lead to continued use of the
  workaround for impl. For mut, there is no workaround. The syntax is not used often for
  visibility, but it is very useful when it is used.
• Should struct expressions be disallowed?
  • Where would it be desirable to prohibit mutability after construction, but still permit
    construction with unchecked values?

Implementation history

• Implement RFC 3323: restrictions #106074