rust
/
book
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/book
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Explain idiom

This commit is contained in:
Carol (Nichols || Goulding) 2018-11-06 15:36:32 -05:00
parent 6a3bac05d3
commit f747b3ddcb
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: D04B39A6CA243902
1 changed files with 3 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

9
2018-edition/src/ch07-02-modules-and-use-to-control-scope-and-privacy.md
View File

@ -625,11 +625,6 @@ For structs, enums, and other items, specifying the full path to the item with
`use` is idiomatic. For example, Listing 7-17 shows the idiomatic way to bring
the standard library's `HashMap` struct into scope.
<!-- TODO: why is this idiomatic but different than what's idiomatic for
functions? I found some discussion in
https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/fmt-rfcs/issues/24 but nothing more than
people saying "i like it" :( -->
<span class="filename">Filename: src/main.rs</span>
```rust
@ -645,7 +640,9 @@ fn main() {
idiomatic way</span>
In contrast, the code in Listing 7-18 that brings the parent module of
`HashMap` into scope would not be considered idiomatic.
`HashMap` into scope would not be considered idiomatic. There's not a strong
reason for this idiom; this is the convention that has emerged and folks have
gotten used to reading and writing.
<span class="filename">Filename: src/main.rs</span>