Rust has an overly complicated modules system compared to any other language Ive used. Rust has a million different string types, Can't use inline assembly unless I use a non stable compiler, etc, etc. On paper rust sounds perfect until you use it.
edit:
And no I'm not talking about the borrow-checker, I like that and it took very little time to figure out.
Steve do you have any details to share on this? Is there a related RFC? The module system is, oddly enough, one of my favorite things about Rust -- so I'd like to keep abreast of any changes to it.
You and me are the only two that like it ;) let me reply to your sibling with the details, it’ll be a few minutes to type it all out. It’s more of a “reduce confusion of paths” than anything else at this stage.
I'd also like to add my voice to those who like the current system. For me at lease, the flexibility it affords outweighed the initial difficulty I encountered learning it.
So, we wanted to do something more sweeping, but in the RFC discussions, some of the bigger ideas were too controversial, so we had to pare them back.
Timeframe: fairly soon. You can already try out most of it on nightly. There's still some final details to work through though.
Before we get into details, none of these things are breaking changes; in Rust 2015, we will add lints to nudge you in this direction, in Rust 2018, those will move to deny by default. This means if you truly love the old system, you can still use it, by allowing instead of denying the warnings.
Main ideas:
* absolute paths begin with the crate name, or "crate" if they're paths in the same crate.
One of the core issues that these changes address is that, if you don't develop the right mental model around defining items and use, counter-intuitive results can happen. For example:
extern crate futures;
mod submodule {
// this works!
use futures::Future;
// so why doesn't this work?
fn my_poll() -> futures::Poll { ... }
}
std is even worse, as you don't even write the `use` or `extern crate` lines:
fn main() {
// this works
let five = std::sync::Arc::new(5);
}
mod submodle {
fn function() {
// ... so why doesn't this work
let five = std::sync::Arc::new(5);
}
}
Quoting the RFC:
> In other words, while there are simple and consistent rules defining the module system, their consequences can feel inconsistent, counterintuitive and mysterious.
With the changes, the code looks like this:
extern crate futures;
mod submodule {
use futures::Future;
fn my_poll() -> futures::Poll { ... }
}
fn main() {
let five = std::sync::Arc::new(5);
}
mod submodle {
fn function() {
let five = std::sync::Arc::new(5);
}
}
Nice and consistent.
That being said, there's also some discussion here that hasn't been totally sorted. Using the crate name in this way has some technical problems, and so we might make it that it's "extern::crate_name", so that is
mod submodule {
use extern::futures::Future;
This is a bit verbose though, so we're not sure that's what we want. See the end of this post for that discussion.
* "extern crate" goes away.
Speaking of the code above, why do we have to write `extern crate futures` anyway? It's already in your Cargo.toml. Cargo already passes --extern futures=/path/to/futures.rlib to rustc. In the end, it just feels like boilerplate. Again, there's that inconsistency between std and futures in the code above. Removing the extern crate line makes it more consistent, and removes boilerplate. 99% of the time, people put the line in the crate root anyway, and half of the 1% who don't get confused when it doesn't work when they do this.
* The "crate" keyword can be used like pub(crate) can today, for making something crate-visible but not public externally
This feels superficial, but ends up also being a much easier mental model. Here's the problem: you see "pub struct Foo;". Is Foo part of your public API, or not? Only if it's in a public module itself! pub(crate) is longer than just crate, and is often the thing you actually want when you use 'pub' inside something that's not public. So let's encourage the right thing, and one that's easier to tell at a glance.
* mod.rs is no longer needed; foo.rs and foo/ work together, rather than foo/mod.rs
There's tons of awkwardness here. Most people use foo.rs until they give it a submodule, then they have to move it to foo/mod.rs. This just feels like meaningless change for no reason. Instead of "mod foo; means look in foo.rs or foo/mod.rs", it becomes "mod foo; means foo.rs". Much more straightforward. Same with a "mod bar" inside foo.rs, it becomes foo/bar.rs, (well, as it is today, but you can see how this is more consistent overall. If it had submodules, it might be foo/bar/mod.rs!)
Also, if you have a bunch of `mod.rs` files open in your editor, you have no idea what module they corresponds to, as they all say `mod.rs`. Now they'll say the file name instead.
----------------------------
That's the quick summary. I've left out some details. If you want to try this yourself, grab a nightly and add this:
I've got to admit Steve, you really spiked my blood pressure this morning with a statement like "we're changing the module system." -- I'm outraged that you would link to this well reasoned, well written RFC that has such a clean and simple migration story! ;-)
I'm actually most hyped about `#![feature(crate_visibility_modifier)]` to be honest. I know it's essentially just an alias for pub(crate), but I'm all about typing less parens in my item definitions! I didn't know about the other `pub(...)` modifiers for the longest time, but they've been so useful for things like games programming, where the entire point of the exercise boils down to "cross cutting concerns" and "eh you've got a &mut Player anyways, just reach in there and poke at the state!"
The `../mod.rs` change is also quite nice. I mean, at the end of the day it'll only save me a `mv` command and a refresh of my directory listing in vim, but sometimes those small context switches can have a surprisingly large impact on flow; since now I'm thinking about filesystems and module trees rather than the problem at hand.
Hehe, I'm glad you're feeling positive about it. It took a lot of blood and tears to reach this point, honestly.
> I mean, at the end of the day it'll only save me a `mv` command
Yeah, as you say, it feels minor, but hopefully, a lot of tiny ergonomic changes will end up feeling significantly better. It's also why the epoch concept is important; it gives us a way to talk about how all these little changes every six weeks build into something much bigger and nicer.
Why not move the version specifier from Cargo.toml to the extern statement ala Qml?
import QtQuick 2.7
This has multiple benefits:
* You only need to go to up to 1 file to add an import
* Tools like cargo-script don't need special comment syntax for inline dependency specification.
* The source code functionality arguably depends on the version of the libraries included as well as the name, so it keeps it together.
This seems pretty obvious though so I'm guessing there's a reason it wasn't done?
> Also, if you have a bunch of `mod.rs` files open in your editor, you have no idea what module they corresponds to, as they all say `mod.rs`. Now they'll say the file name instead.
This is probably the most important reason to make the change tbh. It doesn't seem like a big thing but it's one of those ergonomic papercuts that will make the user experience subtly better once it's fixed.
Sounds great! One thing I've always had trouble with is detecting unused dependencies. If a project grows fast, it's easy to leave some unused modules in Cargo.toml. At least, matching them with their `extern crate` counterpart helps detect unused ones, by relying on rustc for the check.
While that would make you unnecessarily build the dependency the first time, it at least wouldn't be in your final binary, since everything would be unused. That said, we could still warn about it anyway, even without extern crate.
The two different string types are the result of the borrow checker. Rust's string handling would be unusable without the difference between &str and String.
Rust is incredibly usable for a systems programming language that doesn't have a garbage collector.
Often I'm writing code that's as high-level as other languages. Though by its nature it also has aspects that you don't even have to think about in other languages, like Fn vs FnOnce vs FnMut when working with closures. So it's undoubtably going to be more difficult than other languages.
For example, I think most Rust users would agree that it could be confusing when a fn returns a Cow<&str> vs OsString vs String. But it's straight-forward to convert those into String even if you don't care what the differences are.
I think it's fair to simply not have an appetite for a certain language's set of idiosyncrasies.
