Conventions around no_std

[dtolnay]

No description provided.

[dtolnay]

Including what the std feature should be called if there is one. rust-lang/log#176

[Kixunil]

I'd prefer with_std, since simple std might suggest that it's some sort of "standard feature". Or maybe with_std_lib to be very clear from first glance.

Alternatively use use instead of with. :) I'm not a native speaker so I'm not sure which would be more appropriate.

[dtolnay]

I strongly prefer std over with_std or use_std.

It aligns better with the optional dependency / implicit feature mechanism. If you have an optional dependency on serde, the implicit feature is called serde not with_serde or use_serde.

[Kixunil]

Ah, good point, I completely forgot about that.

Bit OT idea: provide a way to create documentation for features? e.g.

## Enables features from std crate
std = []

Maybe with default doc string for implicit features? That would seem to me like the best of both worlds.

[tarcieri]

I've generally gone with "std" for my own projects, however I've seen a decent amount of "use_std"

[dtolnay]

Added in a15e953.

[Kixunil]

I guess I'll have to rewrite some stuff but I agree with the decision.