Re: [PATCH v10 2/2] rust: xarray: Add an abstraction for XArray

[Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 10:22 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 4:00 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I prefer to be explicit, unless there's guidance on this somewhere?
>
> I like explicitness in general, but do you think there is an advantage
> for things in the prelude?
>
> I am asking because I am considering adding more things there, e.g. I
> have a series to be sent to add the `ffi::c_*` types -- having things
> like those in the prelude reduces the noise in imports that everyone
> knows about (and that nobody should be tempted to alias anyway), makes
> things more consistent (because then every use is unqualified vs. the
> mix we have now) and generally the code looks easier to read to focus
> on the other things that may be less common.

I agree with these goals, but I personally disprefer the prelude
approach. Probably the most common misuse involves traits in the
prelude, where importing them can change function call resolution.
It's very likely that this isn't a problem with the prelude currently,
but it also doesn't seem to be used consistently everywhere. I don't
feel very strongly, so if there's a mandate to use it then I'll do so.