Begin rant.

When a programming language has an edge (not even a corner) case commonly requiring the direct expression by the developer of types like,

core::iter::Zip<core::iter::FilterMap<'_, (&std::collections::hash::set::HashSet<attr::Attribute>, &attr::Attribute), &attr::Attribute, core::iter::Zip<core::iter::Repeat<&std::collections::hash::set::HashSet<attr::Attribute>>, core::iter::Map<', (&attr::Attribute, &()), &attr::Attribute, std::collections::hash::map::Entries<', attr::Attribute, ()>>>>, core::iter::FilterMap<', (&std::collections::hash::set::HashSet<attr::Attribute>, &attr::Attribute), &attr::Attribute, core::iter::Zip<core::iter::Repeat<&std::collections::hash::set::HashSet<attr::Attribute>>, core::iter::Map<', (&attr::Attribute, &()), &attr::Attribute, std::collections::hash::map::Entries<'_, attr::Attribute, ()>>>>>,

how does fixing this not take the absolute highest priority?

>>40
I meant what I said, fully qualified paths are important. You need to be able to canonicalize in the case of aliases, which is why you see core:: up there when the program that produced it doesn't even refer to core. The original author of the text in >>1 was being an idiot. They didn't instantiate their type correctly and got that mess, then complained they had to express that type directly.

If you saw that in C++, you would assume some kind of template explosion. You wouldn't see it in Haskell or OCaml because that's fucking insane, and not how parameterization works in either of them. This being a parameterization error, not many languages have anything to say about that in their module system anyway.

>>35
Your examples are unnecessarily vulgar.

>>42
Unnecessarily yet pleasantly, yes?

>>41

You need to be able to canonicalize in the case of aliases

The compiler does. I don't. There aren't any practical cases where all the imported modules can't be aliased with one-two letter qualifiers. No need to write Data.Map.Map when just M.Map will do.

>>43
I liked the "you can call shit from both Anus and Vagina" part.

>>43
You misunderstand. I'm talking about what the compiler spits out, not what you write in the source code. That should be clear from >>41 if you read it.

>>45
Read it? You're asking too much from /prog/.

>>42
Vulgarize this.

*grabs dick*

For a language designed by leftists and SJWs, Rust is a little bit too obsessed about the ownership of everything by something else.

>>48
I think among the well-known languages, Common Lisp is the language that represents leftist beliefs the best way. It is far more egalitarian and liberal than Rust: everyone can hack into the compiler with reader macros, compiler macros and regular code macros; everyone can hack into CLOS; everyone can mutate and change everything even at runtime.