Right, I want the convenience of &[&str] , but if it requires creating a second collection then I think &[String] is better. Use cases that require &str can just map to as_str.

Thanks for the feedback.

• I’ll definitely drop the Cypher prefix, and think it’s a good idea to at least move the shorthand attribute macros to a crate feature. The readmes would use derive instead of the shorthand mostly.
• ty::new() just uses the types in the struct (plus &str for String and &[T] for Vec). The extra builder struct is to help with updates, where you may want to just change a couple of fields, or bind it to editable UI fields.

I didn’t realize how strong the rust presence is here. Experienced-devs on reddit is hard to go without :)

One time we got around the security for a shared windows folder (Win98). Another time a couple of us printed fake midterms for ourselves on official headered paper. But the one that sticks out is this trojan program I got from my older brother called deepthroat. I put it on a couple of other people’s computers that I wanted to mess with, and proceeded to open their cd tray, pop up fake warnings/errors, and other random stuff that a friend and I thought was hilarious at the time. It all stopped when I popped up a message that said “Contacting [name]'s parents…” on this girls computer and she got the teacher’s attention about it. He knew what was up and scanned all the computers. He was mad but we didn’t really get in trouble. We also did the fake desktop screenshot stuff :D

Must have forgot to write it down

I’m not. How bad was it?

My understanding of trunk based development is that it allows for short lived branches and keeps longer work behind feature flags as it is merged in pieces. The common CI approach with pull/merge requests having to pass tests still applies.

That’s the one problem. An LLM enhanced terminal sounds great. Sharing every command with the cloud does not.

You should check that your stuff isn’t undeleted by Reddit. Some other people have reported them doing that.

I’ve had that article saved for years, it’s still the best way to break down documentation imo.

Another key point for code documentation is that the closer it is to the code it’s describing, the more likely it is to be read and maintained. The book “A philosophy of software design” has a section on it.