Using unwrap_or_default() in place of unwrap_or(<default>)

[xphoniex]

Description

Currently this is used:

num.unwrap_or(0);

This is ok for non-default values, but I propose we suggest unwrap_or_default instead for default values of primitive types, which all happen to be 0, and false for bools.

So instead we'd write:

num.unwrap_or_default();

Our syntax is longer, but it'd hard to come up with a case where default value has more characters than keyword "default" itself, which is 7 chars long. If we have an unwrap_or_default method, it makes sense to use it.

Comments please.

Version

No response

Additional Labels

No response

[tbu-]

If we have an unwrap_or_default method, it makes sense to use it.

It only makes sense if it makes the intent clearer. I don't see that for most default values, .unwrap_or(false), .unwrap_or(0), .unwrap_or(None) all seem clearer (and shorter!) than .unwrap_or_default().