You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The word "Buffer" is highly useful across many different kinds of applications i.e. sample buffers, frame buffers, etc etc, and it seems strange for Rust to assume the io::Buffer is important enough to pollute the name space of every module (especially considering it's still experimental).
As an audio developer I haven't used io::Buffer once, however I've already ran into three situations (each in a separate crate) where I'd like to use the name Buffer, however vim's syntax highlighting kicks in each time and reminds me it's taken ;) I can imagine many of the graphics folk have run into this too.
It's really not that big of an annoyance but I just thought i'd check what your thoughts are on having it removed from the prelude? I'd be happy to have a go at it if someone were to give the all clear?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We're planning to audit the prelude as part of stabilization soon, and will likely be removing a lot of the io-related items. I'm going to go ahead and close this issue for now, as this will be part of the planned stabilization process.
The word "Buffer" is highly useful across many different kinds of applications i.e. sample buffers, frame buffers, etc etc, and it seems strange for Rust to assume the
io::Buffer
is important enough to pollute the name space of every module (especially considering it's still experimental).As an audio developer I haven't used
io::Buffer
once, however I've already ran into three situations (each in a separate crate) where I'd like to use the nameBuffer
, however vim's syntax highlighting kicks in each time and reminds me it's taken ;) I can imagine many of the graphics folk have run into this too.It's really not that big of an annoyance but I just thought i'd check what your thoughts are on having it removed from the prelude? I'd be happy to have a go at it if someone were to give the all clear?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: