`LenType` causes regression regarding supported `Vec` sizes and usage in libraries.

[sosthene-nitrokey]

The addition of LenType to vecs and the DefaultLenType means that arbitrary length of Vec are much less usable.

Not all lengths "just work" with Vec like they did previously

For example, the following: Vec<u8, 587> does not compile anymore, and needs to be worked around with Vec<u8, u16, 587>.

This itself is I think a significant downgrade in readability (the benefits of LenType are in most cases I think not worth making code less readable, since the overhead of the Vec itself will often be negligible compared to the buffer of the Vec).

In a library setting it forces the library writer to be explicit of the LenType:

fn some_func<const N: usize>() -> Vec<u8, N> {
    todo!()
}

Fails to compile with

error[E0277]: Length `N` does not have a default `LenType` mapping
   --> src/lib.rs:261:35
    |
261 | fn some_func<const N: usize>() -> Vec<u8, N> {
    |                                   ^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `SmallestLenType` is not implemented for `Const<N>`
    |
    = note: Provide the `LenType` explicitly, such as `usize`
    = help: the following other types implement trait `SmallestLenType`:
              Const<0>
              Const<1000>
              Const<100>
              Const<101>
              Const<1024>
              Const<102>
              Const<103>
              Const<1048576>
            and 287 others

It makes compatibility with View types much harder.

Because of the LenType the following fails to compile:

let vec: &mut VecView<u8> = Vec::<u8, 8>::new();

error[E0308]: mismatched types
   --> src/lib.rs:262:33
    |
262 |     let vec: &mut VecView<u8> = Vec::<u8, 8>::new();
    |              ----------------   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `&mut VecInner<u8, usize, ...>`, found `VecInner<u8, u8, ...>`
    |              |
    |              expected due to this
    |
    = note: expected mutable reference `&mut VecInner<_, usize, VecStorageInner<[MaybeUninit<u8>]>>`
                          found struct `VecInner<_, u8, VecStorageInner<[MaybeUninit<u8>; 8]>>

It can be worked around by specifying the LenType, but this will mean that the VecView will not coerce from most Vecs since most will not use usize as the LenType.

[sosthene-nitrokey]

While the LenType additions are welcome, I think the mechanism to auto-select the LenType is causing too much trouble, and should be opt-in. That could work just by having all LenTypes default to usize to keep the previous behaviour.
There could be another alias with the automatic LenType for those that need the memory savings and are fine with opting-into the issues that come with the automatic type selection.

I think this could warrant yanking the 0.9 release.

[sosthene-nitrokey]

And actually I thought the next release would have been 0.8.1, not a breaking release. In my PR I made efforts to make sure that there were no breaking changes, and documented the breaking changes that were pending, but they were not implemented once it was decided to go with a 0.9.0 instead of 0.8.1 release: #494

I saw the PR for the 0.9 release I should have remembered this sorry.

[newAM]

This is a fairly serious issue that is going to break a lot of code.

I have yanked 0.9.0 from crates.io for now to save people the effort of attempting to update their code.

[reitermarkus]

I wouldn't really call this a regression since LenType is working as designed, and is a breaking change and a bit less ergonomic, as was to be expected.

Vec<u8, 587> does not compile anymore, and needs to be worked around with Vec<u8, u16, 587>.

We can add more sizes, e.g. all up to 1024 to avoid needing the explicit type in most common cases.

In a library setting it forces the library writer to be explicit of the LenType:

Is that a bad thing? A library author should know whether usize is needed or e.g. u8 is sufficient for a particular function.

It makes compatibility with View types much harder.

Not that much harder:

let vec: &mut VecView<_, _> = &mut Vec::<u8, 8>::new();

Note this isn't an argument for or against anything, just a clarification that it isn't as dramatically broken as this issue suggests.

[sosthene-nitrokey]

I don't think it's "broken". But it will cause a lot of code churn, for a feature I don't think many users need. At least we don't, we much more concerned about compile times, binary size, and reducing the use of generics in our application code than the small memory overhead this might save (if it even saves anything given the).

I suggested yanking because I don't think it was understood that the disruption would be this great.
Without the DefaultLenType mechanism, most crates could have upgraded by just bumping the number. Now it means almost every downstream will have to adapt their code, adding generics, that add noise to the code and increase monomorphization.