On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 07:08:42PM -0400, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
[...]
> > > >
> > > > > > also from the link document you shared, looks like the suggestion
> > > > > > is to
> > > > > > use core::ptr::from_{ref,mut}(), was this ever considered?
> > > > >
> > > > > I considered it, but I thought it was ugly. We don't have a linter to
> > > > > enforce it, so I'd be surprised if people reached for it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think avoiding the extra line of `let` is a win, also I don't get why
> > > > you feel it's *ugly*: having the extra `let` line is ugly to me ;-)
> > >
> > > I admit it's subjective, so I'm happy to change it. But I've never
> > > seen that syntax used, and we lack enforcement for either one, so I
> > > don't find much value in arguing over this.
> > >
> >
> > If the original code use "as" for conversion purposes, I think it's good
> > to be consistent and using from_ref() or from_mut(): they are just
> > bullet-proof version of conversions, and having a separate let statement
> > looks like a distraction to me. If for new code, and the author has a
> > reason for let statement, then it's fine.
>
> Fine by me. I'll change the let statements to those methods on the next spin.
>
Thanks! There are a few instances in the early patches as well,
appreciate it if you can change them as well.
Regards,
Boqun
> Thanks for your feedback.
> Tamir
