-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
private/hidden features #10882
Comments
docs.rs already hides features with a |
May I ask a code pointer where this is implemented and example of crates that do that? I tried to |
It's actually just an https://github.com/rust-lang/docs.rs/blob/37fa77264f3b08dff432c082cbd412361d89245c/src/web/features.rs#L123 One example crate doing so is |
Thanks @Nemo157 ! So what I can see from the code, this is only for the list of features, it is still shown in the documentation itself when using |
Yeah, it's only docs.rs that is using this convention. |
It can sometimes be useful to have a feature that you do not want users to use.
docs.rs has a convention that features prefixed with an underscore are not displayed in its UI. Looking through crates.io, I found the following packages declaring features with a leading underscore: https://gist.github.com/ehuss/c2c759067266d530712fc98afcb8513d. The majority look like they are intended to be hidden or internal only, but some are ambiguous.
To some degree, the need for this has been alleviated with the introduction of
dep:
prefixes which remove the implicit feature created by optional dependencies. However, there are still some use cases.Some example use cases may be:
doc(cfg)
?)It is not clear what restrictions a private/hidden feature should have. Not displaying them in the UI and documentation seems useful, but are there other restrictions that can be added? One option is to prevent the use of the feature in a
[dependencies]
table and only enabled via the CLI or other features in the[features]
table, but I'm concerned that rules out some use cases (see gist for some examples).Proposed syntax:
I'm opening this issue to track this feature request, but this isn't something we will likely pursue in the near term. This will require an RFC to explore the design in more detail.
See also:
visibility
attribute for its configurationsThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: