unwrapped vs. collect / collected

[max-sixty]

(This is v narrow, feel free to close without explanation.)

I appreciated the naming of .unwrapped() to demonstrate it wasn't the same as .unwrap().

WDYT about using the same logic with .collect? I was initially confused why .collect::<String>() didn't create a String.

[zesterer]

In hindsight I think I agree that .collected() would have been a better name. That said, it's such a common name that changing it would represent pretty serious breakage for basically all crate users.

[Zij-IT]

Counterpoint: The jump from the most recent non-alpha-version to what would be v1.0 is already a pretty big breaking change, and will force many users to rewrite a decent portion anyway. I don't believe that an extra function name change is too much

[zesterer]

Counter-counterpoint: A lot of users are already using 1.0. Although we've not made explicit stability guarantees, we have implied that the broad strokes of the crate will not be changing provided they're not relying on something very idiosyncratic. To me, this feels like it doesn't pass the value:breakage test. Maybe I'll come back in a week and my opinion will have changed though, I'm not sure.

[Zij-IT]

Counter-counterpoint: A lot of users are already using 1.0. Although we've not made explicit stability guarantees, we have implied that the broad strokes of the crate will not be changing provided they're not relying on something very idiosyncratic. To me, this feels like it doesn't pass the value:breakage test. Maybe I'll come back in a week and my opinion will have changed though, I'm not sure.

Counter-counter-counterpoint: Nah, I’m kidding, I just wanted to write that. As one of the users of 1.0, I can say it wouldn’t bother me, but I think I count as biased here 😅 Anyhow, whichever way the dominos fall doesn’t change much in the grand scheme of things