whossname
Over the last week I’ve been learning some Rust in my spare time and saw that they have a convention of storing the top level module for a namespace in a file called mod.rs. In Elixir this would look like this:
├── foo
│ └── bar.ex
│ └── mod.ex
Compared to the Elixir convention of doing this:
├── foo
│ └── bar.ex
└── foo.ex
I thought there were advantages and disadvantages to each approach. The Rust structure groups the top level module together with it’s child modules, but the name mod.ex is a bit ambiguous, and doesn’t immediately stand out from the child modules. The advantage of the Elixir way is that the file structure matches the module namespace.
I’m suggesting this way of doing it:
├── foo
│ └── _foo.ex
│ └── bar.ex
Here a leading underscore is used to indicate the top level module. This means that when you open a folder the first file is the top level module. The file name also includes the module name, which I find convenient (I know at a glance which mod.ex file I am working with).
I talked to the guys at work and they liked the idea. What does the community think? If it’s unpopular we might use it internally, or we might drop the idea if there is a good reason not to do it.
Where Next?
Trending in Discussions
Other Trending Topics
Latest on Elixir Forum
Sponsor Spotlight
We build reliable cloud platforms for business-critical systems.
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #library
- #deployment
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #elixirconf
- #channels
- #exunit
- #code-sync
- #discussion
- #podcasts
- #javascript
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #ai
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #blog-post
- #elixirconf-us
- #ecto-query
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #elixirconf-eu
- #processes
- #security
- #api
- #forms
- #performance
Our Sponsors
Build Elixir applications with speed and confidence.
Supporting innovation across the BEAM ecosystem.
We build reliable cloud platforms for business-critical systems.
Catch errors, track performance, monitor hosts and more.
Error tracking, logs, uptime, and Just Enough APM. Built for developers.
Practical resources that improve the lives of professional developers.
Bringing learning, work and compliance together since 1987.
The deployment platform built for Elixir: PaaS ease, VPS control.
The team behind Membrane, Popcorn, LiveDebugger. Available for hire.
Courses that'll move you from confusion to "Aha, now I get it!"
Showing Posts 1 to 8- Show Best Posts
- Show All (oldest first)
- Show All (newest first)
lpil
It may be worth noting that with the latest edition of the Rust language they are switching to the pattern used in Elixir
jeremyjh
Well, they are updating the compiler to support either convention as I understand it. Currently
mod.rsis required. I like Elixir’s convention better because its easier to search open buffers/tabs if each file has a different name.lpil
It was part of Rust 2018, to use it just add
edition = "2018"to your Cargo.toml. New projects have this by default nowRich_Morin
Not being able to tell open files apart when they share a file name seems like a deficiency in text editors. Really, the editor should display enough path information to avoid ambiguity. In fact, I recently filed this issue to my text editor’s developers. That said, sharing names in the file tree is a problem for various kinds of tooling, so it probably should not be encouraged.
However, OP’s suggestion avoids this issue, because
_foo.exis not likely to cause conflicts. It may also cause the file to sort higher in directory listings, which can be useful. For this reason, I already use leading underscores on some file names (e.g., partial templates in Phoenix).Speaking of naming conflicts, however, there are some files which cause this problem when umbrella apps are used. For example,
application.ex,config.exs, andmix.exsare duplicated. I’m not suggesting that these files need to be renamed; indeed, I think these naming conflicts may be inherent in the umbrella app approach. However, adding more conflicts doesn’t seem wise…jeremyjh
This is not a limitation of editors, it is simply a trade-off. The wider you make the tabs, the fewer you can display at once. Also in helm for example the buffer list contains multiple columns of information - not just the file name. The wider you make the file name column, the less other information you can display. Sure you could make this all user-configurable and some do but there is always a trade-off and it is not something that can be “fixed” by editors. Good point though that OP’s proposal doesn’t cause this problem. Now if we could just fix
index.js…Rich_Morin
I think the fundamental problem is that code bases (and consequently, file trees) keep increasing in size. This puts pressure on all of the support tooling. For example, reduction of build times was a major reason for the development of Golang.
Clearly, each tool has to handle this growth in some manner. My text editor (BBEdit) uses a sidebar with disclosure triangles and such. I asked them to consider extending this as follows:
They said they have received “a number of prior inquiries like yours about more easily identifying open files, which is an issue we do intend to address going forward, and I’ll be happy to add your feedback to the existing case.”
webuhu
I really like the suggestion of using an underscore to indicate the top level module.
I’m using this pattern in a lot of my file hierarchies - but it not came into my mind it would improve my elixir project hierarchies also…
tme_317
Exactly this… When you open the
foodirectory the_foo.exfile sorts to the top as the entrypoint for the namespaceMyApp.Foo. All the other modules in the namespace likeMyApp.Foo.Barappear below. Visually I really like seeing the related files in a “context” close together in the same directory with the entrypoint on top. The Elixir convention makes sense from a parent->child hierarchical standpoint mapping module names to directory structure but as the number of namespaces grows I definitely prefer your suggestion.Elixir doesn’t really care how you structure the source file hierarchy as all the modules in the app get compiled to a flat directory of
.beamfiles… and it’s very easy to move code/files around later if you change your mind. So I’d say if your team likes it then go for it!