@@ -169,18 +169,14 @@ fn bar() { ... }
169
169
The problem here is that glob imports currently do not allow any of their
170
170
imports to be shadowed by an explicitly-defined item.
171
171
172
- There are two reasons this is considered a minor change by this RFC:
172
+ This is considered a minor change because under the principles of this RFC: the
173
+ glob imports could have been written as more explicit (expanded) ` use `
174
+ statements. It is also plausible to do this expansion automatically for a
175
+ crate's dependencies, to prevent breakage in the first place.
173
176
174
- 1 . The RFC also suggests permitting shadowing of a glob import by any explicit
175
- item. This has been the intended semantics of globs, but has not been
176
- implemented. The details are left to a future RFC, however.
177
-
178
- 2 . Even if that change were made, though, there is still the case where two glob
179
- imports conflict with each other, without any explicit definition "covering"
180
- them. This is permitted to produce an error under the principles of this RFC
181
- because the glob imports could have been written as more explicit (expanded)
182
- ` use ` statements. It is also plausible to do this expansion automatically for
183
- a crate's dependencies, to prevent breakage in the first place.
177
+ (This RFC also suggests permitting shadowing of a glob import by any explicit
178
+ item. This has been the intended semantics of globs, but has not been
179
+ implemented. The details are left to a future RFC, however.)
184
180
185
181
### Structs
186
182
@@ -197,7 +193,7 @@ write, which can break code irreparably.
197
193
This change retains the ability to use struct literals, but it breaks existing
198
194
uses of such literals; it likewise breaks exhaustive matches against the struct.
199
195
200
- #### Minor change: adding or removing private fields when at least one already exists.
196
+ #### Minor change: adding or removing private fields when at least one already exists (before and after the change) .
201
197
202
198
No existing code could be relying on struct literals for the struct, nor on
203
199
exhaustively matching its contents, and client code will likewise be oblivious
0 commit comments