From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 16:47:03 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] Introduce rust: In xdiff Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Ezekiel Newren writes: >> > I wanted feedback on: >> > * Cleaning up Rust type name collisions >> > * People don't like it, so I'll drop that >> >> I don't have a strong opinion on this. If it creates issues I personally >> don't mind fixing it. > > Junio doesn't like it, so I'm not going to do it. It was not "I do not line u16 as a typename when a perfectly well established uint16_t is available", though. It was more about asking to explain the reason behind insisting to use u(8|16|32|64) types in C code. Perhaps there is a compelling reason to do so that I was missing. I know that the kernel has used these types for a long time, but that way predates their more recent flirt with Rust. If your answer was "the kernel uses them", then I'd want that answer to cover a few additional questions, like - Have they benefitted from their use of u(8|16|32|64) when they started working with Rust and if so how? - Would we be expected to reap the same benefit if we used these types? for example. Thanks.