Re: [PATCH] rust: introduce sfile macro for easier code tracing

[Timur Tabi <ttabi@nvidia.com>]

On Wed, 2025-06-04 at 12:28 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> 
> > I could add a sdbg!() if you think it would be useful.
> 
> Yeah, that was what I was thinking, though it is sadly one more letter.

Maybe dbs!(), or just d!() ?

> We could also shorten a bit more by not printing the column like
> `dbg!` does, which I suspect many may not care about.

Frankly, I think the column number is useless at best.

> I wonder if we could make the `dbg!` the one with the longer name
> instead, i.e. to keep the functionality in case someone really needs
> it. Sadly, that means making it not match the stdlib name, but it may
> be worth it if we expect everyone to end up typing `sdbg!` all the
> time, and only very rarely `dbg!`.

How about calling it d!() and dropping the column number? That would make it extra short.

> > Oh, I didn't think that would be a problem.  I will move the functions outside the macro.
> 
> It generally isn't a big deal, especially here since the intention was
> temporary use anyway as you clarified, but if a function may be useful
> in its own, then we probably want to take it out anyway, which also
> "forces" us to provide proper docs and examples/tests for it, etc.

I ran some tests on godbolt, and moving the functions out doesn't appear to cause any problems.

I have doubts that they would be useful anywhere else.  Remember, they exist only because rfind() is
not const.  If we fix that in the compiler, we wouldn't need these functions.