Add Builder::whitelist_var; deprecate Builder::whitelisted_var

[fitzgen]

The CLI flag is --whitelist-var, so we should be consistent and remove the "ed" from the builder method.

• Rename Builder::whitelisted_var to Builder::whitelist_var
• Add Builder::whitelisted_var that delegates to whitelist_var
• Mark whitelisted_var as #[deprecated = "use whitelist_var instead"]

[highfive]

Hi! If you have any questions regarding this issue, feel free to make a comment here, or ask it in the #servo channel in IRC.

If you intend to work on this issue, then add @highfive: assign me to your comment, and I'll assign this to you. 😄

[aeleos]

@highfive: assign me

[highfive]

Hey @aeleos! Thanks for your interest in working on this issue. It's now assigned to you!

[fitzgen]

@aeleos don't hesitate to ping me if you have any questions :)

[aeleos]

@fitzgen I do have one question, is there any recommended place to put the old deprecated function? I am thinking right next to it is probably best, but at the bottom could also work.

[aeleos]

@fitzgen I lied I do have another question, I ended up with this code

/// Whitelist the given variable so that it (and all types that it
/// transitively refers to) appears in the generated bindings. Regular
/// expressions are supported.
pub fn whitelist_var<T: AsRef<str>>(mut self, arg: T) -> Builder {
    self.options.whitelisted_vars.insert(arg);
    self
}

/// Whitelist the given variable.
///
/// Deprecated: use whitelist_var instead.
#[deprecated = "use whitelist_var instead"]
pub fn whitelisted_var<T: AsRef<str>>(self, arg: T) -> Builder {
    self.whitelist_var(arg)
}

The compiler said that I didn't need mut self on the deprecated function, and just self was fine. It compiles but it strikes me as odd, does it make sense to you or is there a problem I am not seeing

[fitzgen]

I am thinking right next to it is probably best, but at the bottom could also work.

Right next to it is fine.

The compiler said that I didn't need mut self on the deprecated function, and just self was fine. It compiles but it strikes me as odd, does it make sense to you or is there a problem I am not seeing

There is no problem you're not seeing.

To call a method that takes self by value, you don't need mut, but to modify any of self's fields locally you need mut. Its a bit funky. This sparked a huge discussion right before Rust 1.0, but ultimately we stayed with what we currently have: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/25i544/babysteps_focusing_on_ownership_or_removing_let/

[aeleos]

@fitzgen ah thanks for the info. I created a PR, hopefully I did it correctly.