Skip to content

Tracking issue for RFC 2126: Clarify and streamline paths and visibility #44660

Closed
@aturon

Description

@aturon

This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Clarify and streamline paths and visibility" (rust-lang/rfcs#2126).

Steps:

Unresolved questions:

  • How should we approach migration? Via a fallback, as proposed, or via epochs? It is probably best to make this determination with more experience, e.g. after we have a rustfix tool in hand.

  • The final syntax for absolute paths; there's more bikeshedding to be done here in a context where we can actually try out the various options. In particular, there are some real advantages to having both crate:: and extern:: paths, but ideally we could do it in a more succinct way.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

B-RFC-approvedBlocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented.C-tracking-issueCategory: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFCT-langRelevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

Milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions