On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 01:43:38PM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
[...]
> >>
> >> You can always get a `&T` from `ARef<T>`, since it implements `Deref`.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, but this is unrelated. I was talking about that API providers can
> > decide whether they want to only provide a `raw_ptr` -> `ARef<Self>` if
> > they don't need to provide a `raw_ptr` -> `&Self`.
> >
> >>> Overall, I feel like we don't necessarily make a preference between
> >>> `->&Self` and `->ARef<Self>` functions here, since it's up to the users'
> >>> design?
> >>
> >> I would argue that there should be a clear preference for functions
> >> returning `&Self` when possible (ie there is a parameter that the
> >
> > If "possible" also means there's going to be `raw_ptr` -> `&Self`
> > function (as the same publicity level) anyway, then agreed. In other
> > words, if the users only need the `raw_ptr` -> `ARef<Self>`
> > functionality, we don't want to force people to provide a `raw_ptr` ->
> > `&Self` just because, right?
>
> I see... I am having a hard time coming up with an example where users
> would exclusively want `ARef<Self>` though... What do you have in mind?
> Normally types wrapped by `ARef` have `&self` methods.
>
Having `&self` methods doesn't mean the necessarity of a `raw_ptr` ->
`&Self` function, for example, a `Foo` is wrapped as follow:
struct Foo(Opaque<foo>);
impl Foo {
pub fn bar(&self) -> Bar { ... }
pub unsafe fn get_foo(ptr: *mut foo) -> ARef<Foo> { ... }
}
in this case, the abstration provider may not want user to get a
`raw_ptr` -> `&Self` function, so no need to have it.
Regards,
Boqun
> Cheers,
> Benno
>
