On 26.07.24 16:26, Boqun Feng wrote:
> 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.
I don't understand this, why would the abstraction provider do that? The
user can already get a `&Foo` reference, so what's the harm having a
function supplying that directly?
I get the argument that you need to always convert to `ARef` if users
only use that, but when `Foo` provides `&self` methods, you're not
required to have an `ARef`.
---
Cheers,
Benno
