WIP Enable clippy::same_name_method lint
#1556
Draft
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
It is confusing and error prone to have a method on a type and a trait implemented by that type with the same name. This is particularly bad for something like `<Window as SpaceElement>::bbox`, which actually calls `Window::bbox_with_popups`. Which is different from `Window::box`. But these three functions have the same type signature. It seems good to disallow this lint in general, but it can be allowed where the methods do the same thing.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It is confusing and error prone to have a method on a type and a trait implemented by that type with the same name.
This is particularly bad for something like
<Window as SpaceElement>::bbox, which actually callsWindow::bbox_with_popups. Which is different fromWindow::box. But these three functions have the same type signature.It seems good to disallow this lint in general, but it can be allowed where the methods do the same thing.
Not sure how we want to resolve this. Is there a better way to name
bbox/geometryto avoid duplication? "Geometry" seems like a problematically overloaded term in general...I guess it's probably not intentional that
xwm::X11Surfacehas two definitions ofalive(), once asself.state.lock().unwrap().aliveand once asself.state.lock().unwrap().alive && self.conn.strong_count() != 0?