On 10/27/2025 2:46 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 10/26/25 9:44 AM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 3:40 PM Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
> ...
> 
>> Regarding the `.into_as()` name, it makes sense, but it can be a bit
>> surprising when reading out of context... The standalone functions are
>> super clear, in comparison. But I am not sure what could be better.
>> `into_in_this_arch()` or similar could emphasize that this will only
>> work in certain architectures, i.e. it is "an `into()` for this arch"
>> rather than the general one.
>> That would go well with the idea that you didn't implement it for
>> other obvious types, which I guess was to avoid developers using this
>> instead of `into()` by mistake, right?
>>
> 
> Exactly: the into-as, from-as naming suffers from *appearing* to be
> familiar and readable, but actually, the naming gives no hint as to 
> what it is really doing--nor how it is subtly different from the
> basic from/as/into standard conversions.
> 
> Instead, we need to add something (almost anything) to the name, to
> make it clearly different from the from/as/into.
> 
> into_for_arch() goes in that direction, for example.

100% agree with John. Thanks,

 - Joel

Reply via email to