Hacker News

There are several reasons.

1. Struct fields are really important in Rust because of auto-traits. Your life as a Rust programmer is easier if all fields fit on the screen, because one of them may be the reason your struct is `!Sync` or whatever.

2. Impl blocks can have different generic bounds from the struct itself, which is a nice shorthand for repeating the same generic bounds for a series of related methods. So you need to be able to write multiple per type anyway. It would he confusing if there was an “implied” impl block to look for as well.

3. It helps emphasize that Rust is a language that wants you to think about the shape of your data.

Defletter a day ago [ - ]

These don't seem like insurmountable challenges though. Unnamed impl blocks could work entirely within requirements. There could also be a lint to warn about any fields that are below trait definitions.

    struct Example {
        number: i32,
    }

    impl Example {
        fn boo() {
            println!("boo! Example::boo() was called!");
        }
    }

    trait Thingy {
        fn do_thingy(&self);
    }

    impl Thingy for Example {
        fn do_thingy(&self) {
            println!("doing a thing! also, number is {}!", self.number);
        }
    }

This could be expressed as:

    struct Example {
        number: i32,

        impl {
            fn boo() {
                println!("boo! Example::boo() was called!");
            }
        }

        impl Thingy {
            fn do_thingy(&self) {
                println!("doing a thing! also, number is {}!", self.number);
            }
        }
    }

    trait Thingy {
        fn do_thingy(&self);
    }

Keeping related things together is just infinitely more readable, in my opinion. In fact, the confusing nature of "impl <struct>" becoming "impl <trait> for <struct>" is obviated by internal impl blocks. Keeping them separate just seems so artificial, if not downright dogmatic.

simonask a day ago [ - ]

I mean, these are in the same file almost all the time anyway, and in that case all it gives you is an extra level of indentation. I don't think it's nicer at all.

Defletter 21 hours ago [ - ]

It's comments like this that remind me of the conciseness-at-all-costs dogma: that people genuinely treat indentation as some kind of eldritch horror; that they would genuinely prefer "impl X" becoming "impl Y for X" (thus making it difficult to parse at a glance because the target keeps shifting places) over it. It's bewildering.