In my experience taking a term that is widely used and attempting to give it a more specific meaning doesn't end well. If people are using "method" interchangeably with "associated function" right now it will be an endless battle of trying to make people stop using the term "sloppily" when it isn't sloppy it was just the original meaning.
Rust
Welcome to the Rust community! This is a place to discuss about the Rust programming language.
Wormhole
Credits
- The icon is a modified version of the official rust logo (changing the colors to a gradient and black background)
I could understand method = associated function whose first parameter is named self
, so it can be called like self.foo(…)
. This would mean functions like Vec::new
aren’t methods. But the author’s requirement also excludes functions that take generic arguments like Extend::extend
.
However, even the above definition gives old terminology new meaning. In traditionally OOP languages, all functions in a class are considered methods, those only callable from an instance are “instance methods”, while the others are “static methods”. So translating OOP terminology into Rust, all associated functions are still considered methods, and those with/without method call syntax are instance/static methods.
Unfortunately I think that some people misuse “method” to only refer to “instance method”, even in the OOP languages, so to be 100% unambiguous the terms have to be:
- Associated function: function in an
impl
block. - Static method: associated function whose first argument isn’t
self
(even if it takesSelf
under a different name, likeBox::leak
). - Instance method: associated function whose first argument is
self
, so it can be called likeself.foo(…)
. - Object-safe method: a method callable from a trait object.
I'd call instance methods just methods, it fits more into how the word is commonly used.
The omission is just way to easy not to use.
Yes, I agree with your clarification of commonly in use terms.