[Manishearth]

It was https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41646

It was about changing the name of a lint from "bad-style" to "non-standard-style".

I still don't understand what this change has anything to do with social politics. Nor was this really related to being inclusive or whatever, it was just about being nicer.

Sure, there are more important things to do. But that's true for just about any bikeshed, that's pretty much a prerequisite for a discussion to be a bikeshed.

> While the example isn't within official documentation, it does demonstrate the lead Rust devs placing a lot of importance on social politics, and tip-toeing around such politically sensitive topics as coding style.

That's a major extrapolation. I'm not a lead rust dev (I do have commit/r+, I guess that can count). I drive-by filed an issue during a conference talk that I thought would be a small improvement that would be nicer to newbies and also just more accurate ("bad style" doesn't actually convey anything, why is it bad?). Various rust devs posted opinions and thoughts there.

Nobody was tiptoeing or anything. You're grossly misrepresenting what happened there.

[david-cako]

These types of issues/pulls are honestly intellectually demeaning. I know you're acting in good faith, but it really feels like MK-Ultra braindrain.

Imagine approaching Linus Torvalds at a conference and telling him that you think people who choose to disobey the documented code style (which I, and most others, do not necessarily use outside of Linux kernel code) are just using "non-standard code style".

[Manishearth]

But this isn't about code style for a repo. If folks don't use the rust code style for contributing to the rust repo, sure, their pulls will be asked to fix it and not merged till they do.

But as you yourself mention, folks use different code styles in different places. This is about being clearer about that.

The better analogy here is GCC calling non-GNU style C code "bad" in all repos it is run on.

Rust as a community is much more uniform wrt code style than C is, which is why the compiler even does things like warn about nonstandard style, but that's just it -- the style is non standard, not intrinsically bad in anyway (and "nonstandard" is better at explaining what's wrong than "bad" is).

[Etzos]

But it's true that there's nothing inherently "bad" about the code. It's just not conforming to the standard style. It seems pretty reasonable to want that to sound less menacing than "bad code", which would hint very strongly that one has something semantically incorrect.

[jcelerier]

> Nor was this really related to being inclusive or whatever, it was just about being nicer.

In what wicked world do you live where the word "bad" is considered as a "not-nice" word should not be said in order not to risk offending people ? What's next ? Replacing "error" by "potential incorrectness" ? This is 1984-like. No one should have to be afraid of words.

[Manishearth]

This has nothing to do with political correctness or offending people. We didn't think it was some horrible mean thing to have bad_style. We just wanted to improve it, to be nicer (doesn't imply it was not-nice before, but improvement can always happen), and more accurate.

Feel free to continue to call it bad style within the Rust community. Nothing 1984-like about it at all. It was a request for changing some wording, one which could have been rejected, and we would have moved on, because it was a drive-by issue that I didn't care about much.

You're ascribing a lot of intent and background to that post, intent that wasn't there.