-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
cleanup: remove field is_import
from def::Export
#47100
Comments
@eddyb or @jseyfried This seems like a good candidate for an easy/mentor issue, perhaps one of you could provide what |
@Mark-Simulacrum You'd compare it with the |
Depending on what is desired, the name of the original item might also be compared (because a reexport from the same module, aka |
Remove rustdoc-specific is_import field from HIR Fixes #47100. I believe that there is no need to check for the name being the same, as this part of rustdoc seems to be strictly interested in exploring "public modules." Re-exports from the same module cannot visit another module; and, re-exports cannot export items with a greater visibility than that item declares. Therefore, I think this code is either sufficient, or in fact does more than is necessary, depending on whether rustdoc cares about the re-export itself. r? @eddyb
…=eddyb Remove rustdoc-specific is_import field from HIR Fixes rust-lang#47100. I believe that there is no need to check for the name being the same, as this part of rustdoc seems to be strictly interested in exploring "public modules." Re-exports from the same module cannot visit another module; and, re-exports cannot export items with a greater visibility than that item declares. Therefore, I think this code is either sufficient, or in fact does more than is necessary, depending on whether rustdoc cares about the re-export itself. r? @eddyb
Remove field
is_import
fromrustc::def::Export
.The field is only used is
rustdoc
and can be refactored away.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: