[inferiorhuman]

So from reading those comments, I'd come to the opposite conclusion: Cow<str> is absolutely the right choice and perhaps String should really have been Cow<str>.

Insofar as taking an impl into, burntsushi linked to a rust playground demonstrating where that approach falls down. In general (heh) taking arguments , especially options or stringy ones, that are generalized over an into impl is one of those things that seems real nice at first but gets real unpleasant pretty quick IMO.

[burntsushi]

In my defense, I said I occasionally regret the choice. But in rebuttal, I certainly do not have your confidence that returning Cow<str> is the right choice. Basically, when it comes down to it, I'm not 100% convinced that it pulls its weight. But like I said in the issue, it's decently motivated.

I don't think String could be a Cow<str>. Remember, Cow<str> is actually a Cow<'a, str>, and if you want to borrow a &str from a Cow, the lifetime of that &str is not 'a, but rather, attached to the Cow itself. (This is necessary because the Cow<str> may contain an owned String.) This in turn would effectively kill string slicing.

In order for something like Cow<str> to be the default, you need more infrastructure. Maybe something like hipstr[1]. It is a nice abstraction, but not one that would be appropriate for std.

[1]: https://docs.rs/hipstr/latest/hipstr/

[chrismorgan]

(Sorry I missed the word “occasionally” there!)