Switch from use … as IpfsClient
to type aliases for clearer API docs.
#131
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I find the generated API docs for
use path::Foo as Bar
to be confusing compared to type aliases.Current docs from
master
branchCurrently in master, the identifier
ipfs_api_backend_hyper::IpfsClient
is defined as:The rendered API docs look like this:
What is the relationship of
IpfsClient
toHyperBackend
?I believe the root problem here is actually a
rustdoc
problem, but this PR uses type aliases to work around the ambiguity.With type aliases (this PR) in
HyperBackend
By introducing type aliases first of all the alias is documented explicitly:
-then when clicking through to the definition of
HyperBackend
the API is unambiguous:With type aliases (this PR) in
ActixBackend
The equivalent for
ActixBackend
has this type alias:-and this underlying backend API: