I started off avoiding mod.rs because it's the old way and I prefer having the module name as the filename. However, if the module needs a folder for submodules anyway, then there's a reason to tuck it away as mod.rs, especially if not doing so leaves lots of duplicate names (a.rs, b.rs, c.rs, ..., a/, b/, c/).
But then I don't really like to have much else in mod.rs other than mod declarations and pub use. Maybe a utility fn or a not-unwieldly implementation of struct "Foo", the module's namesake.
It varies, depending on if I have submodules or not. I see no reason to have a folder with a single mod.rs.
But then I don't really like to have much else in mod.rs other than mod declarations and pub use.
You can always inline the mod.rs contents in its parent module and have one fewer file overall. Not every module needs to be in its own file.
But generally when working in an IDE I don't like to see a bunch of mod.rs files in the tabs as it just makes it harder to jump to the right one.
I use
mod.rsbecause I like having a module entirely contained in its own directory, rather than having part of it in the parent one. Obvious exception is when the module does not have submodules.It also follows the same structure of crates, where
mod.rsmaps tolib.rs. It has the (minor) advantage that I can trivially extract a module into its own crate by copying the module's directory and renamingmod.rstolib.rs, but more than anything I like the homogeneity.But then I don’t really like to have much else in mod.rs other than mod declarations and pub use. Maybe a utility fn or a not-unwieldly implementation of struct “Foo”, the module’s namesake.
Same.
My
mod.rsonly contains a sequence ofpub use self::...;.
