[DONE] Why does DIDUrl::join takes ownership of self instead of borrowing it?

[arnauorriols]

I'm referring to DIDUrl::join. If I'm not mistaken, the method does not need ownership of the instance, nor it is customary that "join" methods take it (as can be seen in Path::join or Slice::join). This forces client code to redundantly clone the DIDUrl. Is it maybe a semantical reason?

[cycraig]

I could be wrong but I think the general reasoning was not to hide clones in functions, similar to why DID::join consumes self and requires a preceding clone or to_url call.

Personal opinion but given the behaviour of existing APIs you mentioned and the focus shift towards being more developer-friendly and easy-to-use, I would vote for changing DID::join and DIDUrl::join to borrow self.

[arnauorriols]

I could be wrong but I think the general reasoning was not to hide clones in functions

Don't get me wrong, if borrowing self would force a clone within the method, then I would get behind taking self by value, as stablished by the Rust guidelines. But by the looks of it (and I might have overlooked something) self is never needed by value within DIDUrl::join. It's only borrowed in self.to_string().

similar to why DID::join consumes self and requires a preceding clone or to_url call.

I would consider DID::join an special case, because it's just a shortcut to did.into_url().join(value), and this indeed reasonably needs self by value to convert into a DIDUrl

It's worth noting that the underlying did_url::DID::join method borrows self instead of owning it (if API consistency is a matter of concern)

[cycraig]

Changed in PR #871, thanks for the suggestion.