{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigoy4vlrjz6dyastkoyxkfkm7dzejslmv4zwdowsju35jx6euetum",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ivbknywyskln22er3nkssdhl/app.bsky.feed.post/3miv7md4o7k42"
  },
  "path": "/t/pre-rfc-bulk-visibility-syntax/24136#post_6",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-06T19:48:29.000Z",
  "site": "https://internals.rust-lang.org",
  "tags": [
    "reasoning footprint",
    "not explicit"
  ],
  "textContent": "xnlogical:\n\n> It also isn't clear on how much expected utility should overrule it.\n\nThis is a place where Aaron's reasoning footprint could help you analyze it, or some of the words in boat's not explicit post.\n\nYou're arguing to make this less local but more factored, in a sense, with the pluses and minuses that come along with that.\n\nI would also suggest poking at exactly what you're trying to solve here. For example, is it as annoying if it's just `pub` rather than `pub(in ...)`? To me it feels not at all worth it for `pub { ... }`, for example. So there are alternatives like \"what if we just have `internal fn` or something\" to avoid the `pub(crate)`.\n\nxnlogical:\n\n> It would be essentially the same as bulk `extern \"X\" { ... }`.\n\nRemember that `extern \"C\" fn foo() { ... }` and `extern \"C\" { fn foo(); }` are completely different. It's not that one is the bulk and the other isn't.",
  "title": "[Pre-RFC] Bulk visibility syntax"
}