Skip to content
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

Support for discovering cross crate implementation of a Trait for types present in a foreign crates. #2437

Closed
artech-git opened this issue Mar 1, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@artech-git
Copy link

artech-git commented Mar 1, 2024

This idea came to my mind while opening my 19th tab for searching a implementation of the trait in my current crate I was working with, here is basically what I thought.

let's say you have a crate metrics, this crate has a amazing trait named Layer<R> and with some method present inside of it.

now let's say I wish to discover crates which implement this trait on it self, therefore instead of manually scrounging docs.rs maybe we have a tiny little button which helps us do that, directly from the page of the crate itself, in my understanding this can save redundant tab spawning as well.

Let me know what you guys think.

@artech-git artech-git changed the title Support for discovering cross crate implementation of a Trait for other types in the foreign crates. Support for discovering cross crate implementation of a Trait for types present in a foreign crates. Mar 1, 2024
@syphar
Copy link
Member

syphar commented Mar 1, 2024

Thank you for the idea,

this sounds like #1467, or am I missing something?

@artech-git
Copy link
Author

Hi @syphar my initial idea & #1467 are pretty close, what I think would be amazing to have if it can indexed on the docs.rs server itself and also to show a distinct filtering regarding whether the crate who are implementing this have it implemented internally or is it public in on the object types of the crate.

@syphar
Copy link
Member

syphar commented Mar 1, 2024

That's a tough one, but both would depend on the same JSON processing & similar storage requirements, so I would propose we merge these.

Could you add a comment to #1467 description the additional feature idea? Then we can close this one.

@syphar
Copy link
Member

syphar commented Jun 15, 2024

moved the last point to #1467

@syphar syphar closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Jun 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants