rust-typed-builder VS rust

derive_builder works in runtime - you have to unwrap built result. And code editors cannot use auto-import builder-types. That's why I switched to [typed-builder|https://github.com/idanarye/rust-typed-builder] which looks similar to builder-pattern but more popular.

I'm the author of the typed-builder crate (and a couple of other crates in a similar position). The name of the crate's repository on GitHub is rust-typed-builder. Does the new trademark policy mean I have to change the repository's name to typed-builder-rs or typed-builder.rs or something similar, or am I in the clear because only the repository name is has the word "rust" in it and the crate itself is only named "typed-builder"?

There are also crates which can do that for you (e.g. https://github.com/idanarye/rust-typed-builder).

I can open a PR if desired but typed-builder is a big example for me of where this would be super useful. It's a good example of using traits/type safety for compile-time guarantees but the error messages are really subpar compared to the standard Rust experience, so feels like a very arbitrary compromise on Rust's strengths.

Yes! The inspiration came from: * rust-typed-builder which is the struct equivalent of this crate. * https://users.rust-lang.org/t/typesafe-builder-design/58784

Rust Typed Builder

Here's an example of someone citing a disagreement between CRT and shell32:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44650

This in addition to the Rust CVE mentioned elsewhere in the thread which was rooted in this issue:

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/04/09/cve-2024-24576.html

Here are some quick programs to test contrasting approaches. I don't have examples of inputs where they parse differently on hand right now, but I know they exist. This was also a problem that was frequently discussed internally when I worked at MSFT.

    #include 

> instead of choosing a certain numbered version of the random library (if I remember correctly) I let cargo download the latest version which had a completely different API.

Yeah, they didn't follow the instructions and got burned. I still think that multiple things went wrong simultaneously for that experience. I wonder if more prevalent uses of `#[doc(alias = "name")]` being leveraged by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120730 (which now that I check only accounts for methods and not functions, I should get on that!) so that when changing APIs around people at least get a slightly better experience.

Almost fixed the compiler: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123325

Rust: A secure, efficient, and modern programming language (omitting ten thousand words). You can simply follow the installation instructions provided on the official website.

Recently did something similar in Rust but for generating SVGs. We've adopted it for snapshot testing of cargo and rustc's output. Don't have a good PR handy for showing Github's rendering of changes in the SVG (text, side-by-side, swiping) but https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121877/files has newly added SVGs.

To see what is supported, see the screenshot in the docs: https://docs.rs/anstyle-svg/latest/anstyle_svg/

We strongly believe in Rust as a powerful language for building production-grade software, especially for systems like ours that run alongside Kubernetes.

The above Assert<{N % 2 == 1}> requires #![feature(generic_const_exprs)] and the nightly toolchain. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76560 for more info.