Re: [PATCH v2] rust: impl_flags: add method to return underlying integer

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 12:55 PM Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> +/// An optional visibility specifier in the inner-field position of the
> +/// bitmask struct controls the visibility of the generated `bits`
> +/// accessor. Declare it `pub` (e.g., `pub struct Permissions(pub u32)`)
> +/// to expose the raw integer outside the defining module — useful when
> +/// passing the value to C APIs. Omit it to keep `bits` private.

Hmm... It is clever, but it can be quite confusing. Could we use some
other way of "tagging" it?

I would also put `()` in `bits`, and make it a intra-doc links, to
make it extra clear it is the method we are talking about here.

And why do we call this "private", given the `From` as Sashiko points out?

i.e. your example works if you do (without the patch):

    /// let raw: u32 = read_only.into();
    /// assert_eq!(raw, Permission::Read as u32);

>  ///     /// Represents multiple permissions.
>  ///     #[derive(Debug, Clone, Default, Copy, PartialEq, Eq)]
> -///     pub struct Permissions(u32);
> +///     pub struct Permissions(pub u32);

I would prefer if we had separate examples for "optional features"
like this; otherwise, people may think this is the "common" way of
doing it -- and I assume in cases like this we want users to avoid
exposing if not needed, no?

> +            /// The visibility of this method is controlled by the optional
> +            /// visibility specifier in the inner-field position of the
> +            /// bitmask struct declaration.

I would make this paragraph a comment as Sashiko points out.

Cheers,
Miguel