Methods Should Be Object Safe
(nora.codes)
from armchair_progamer@programming.dev to rust@programming.dev on 11 May 2024 17:50
https://programming.dev/post/13941900
from armchair_progamer@programming.dev to rust@programming.dev on 11 May 2024 17:50
https://programming.dev/post/13941900
threaded - newest
In my experience taking a term that is widely used and attempting to give it a more specific meaning doesn’t end well. If people are using “method” interchangeably with “associated function” right now it will be an endless battle of trying to make people stop using the term “sloppily” when it isn’t sloppy it was just the original meaning.
I could understand method = associated function whose first parameter is named
self
, so it can be called likeself.foo(…)
. This would mean functions likeVec::new
aren’t methods. But the author’s requirement also excludes functions that take generic arguments likeExtend::extend
.However, even the above definition gives old terminology new meaning. In traditionally OOP languages, all functions in a class are considered methods, those only callable from an instance are “instance methods”, while the others are “static methods”. So translating OOP terminology into Rust, all associated functions are still considered methods, and those with/without method call syntax are instance/static methods.
Unfortunately I think that some people misuse “method” to only refer to “instance method”, even in the OOP languages, so to be 100% unambiguous the terms have to be:
impl
block.self
(even if it takesSelf
under a different name, likeBox::leak
).self
, so it can be called likeself.foo(…)
.Yes, I agree with your clarification of commonly in use terms.
I’d call instance methods just methods, it fits more into how the word is commonly used.
The omission is just way to easy not to use.