Private by default

1

How would people feel if everything was private by default in ReScript instead of the opposite?

Using a signature file to hide details feels cumbersome, especially since I often use this for React components. This requirement is necessary for fast refresh to work, and it all feels a bit backward to me.

What if ReScript had an export keyword like JavaScript? Then public information could be determined explicitly instead.

1 Like
2

I met someone today who was complaining that Rust requires pub to be added everywhere :joy:

3

I suppose you read: RFC: private by default for values ?

I think we are a bit hesitant to do such a big change after the massive “uncurried by default” change.

Other than that there are benefits in interface files concerning compilation speed. It’s basically the secret sauce for scalability.

That said I wholly agree that it’s not a great fit for everything that utilizes fast refresh. But I also think it is great for prototyping if you don’t need to export every single function separately.

2 Likes
4

I’d be happy with a private keyword instead of having to make a .resi file. I have gotten used to the .resi files, but it’s not super intuitive to JS programmers.

private let x = 42`
5

There is a syntax for private let bindings, but it allows multiple values like a module would.

That way you don’t need to put private before every value.

%%private(
  let x = 42
  let y = 1
)
1 Like
6

Perhaps I’m more looking for a Vite plugin that simply removes any exports.

It shouldn’t be too difficult to remove sum from

export {
  sum,
  CounterMessage,
  App,
}

This avoids the need for any changes on the ReScript side and effectively resolves the issue in the relevant problem space.

1 Like
7

Like this: GitHub - egoist/vite-plugin-remove-exports: A Vite plugin to remove certain exports ?

8

While I would prefer a “private by default” setting I mostly don’t care.
Sometimes I try to use the %%private approach, but my LSP doesn’t work for code inside. So I use a nested module to “hide” the functions etc.

Is it a known issue?

I’m using neovim with @rescript/language-server@1.58.0

9

Sounds like something that should be fixed in the LSP indeed. Would you log an issue on the tracker?

10

Yeah, you are right this was never solved:

Last comment in that third issue is key:

cristianoc on Apr 30, 2021
We need a better representation rather than apply reverse reconstructive surgery in the IDE.

I think that is still not improved, but nowadays as both the LSP and the compiler are developed alongside in the same repository, we might have a shot at this?
@cristianoc @zth

11

Oh, right, forgot about those. I think the assessment @cristianoc has still holds - we should find a better representation for this instead. And yeah, I think we’re better off than ever to do that now that we’re getting our own AST.

3 Likes