Tracking issue for RFC #2145: Type privacy and private-in-public lints #48054
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
Area: Lints (warnings about flaws in source code) such as unused_mut.Area: Visibility / privacyBlocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented.Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFCStatus: There are blocking design concerns.Status: It's hard to tell what's been done and what hasn't! Someone should do some investigation.Relevant to the language team
This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Type privacy and private-in-public lints " (rust-lang/rfcs#2145).
Steps:
Unresolved questions:
It's not fully clear if the restriction for associated type definitions required for
type privacy soundness, or it's just a workaround for a technical difficulty.
Interactions between macros 2.0 and the notions of reachability / effective
visibility used for the lints are unclear.