Shadowing Section

[SpiralOSS]

Maybe shadowing deserves an individual section? you used open type above for another reason, but for me a key thing that trips people up is how DU cases shadow others and/or type names. I always used to open a DU's module, but really open type on the DU brings less stuff in.

Not sure the "AuotOpen would sidestep thi"s is going to be grokked by someon scanning a cheatsheet...

Originally posted by @bartelink in #30 (comment)

[IanWitham]

[<RequireQualifiedAccess>] is another way to avoid shadowing problems. Perhaps this could be added to the code organisation section?

[bartelink]

Agree - RQA is definitely worthy of a mention (in general if you use DU results there can often be overlapping cases, and the alternative is a monster error DU that's shared across all things and then wrapping that in Result<'R, 'E>

[IanWitham]

I think the AutoOpen section could just include something like:

Use AutoOpen with caution as functions with identical names from different modules will silently shadow each other, causing the most recently imported definition to be used instead of the one you might expect.

[bartelink]

Yes, something like that (though it needs to convey the sheer pain a random unavoidable reordering can cause if things are badly enough named in a big enough codebase!)

[SpiralOSS]

Yes, something like that (though it needs to convey the sheer pain a random unavoidable reordering can cause if things are badly enough named in a big enough codebase!)

But also: cheat sheet. We don't have to convey everything.

[bartelink]

I guess I was trying to nudge it in the direction of:

Use AutoOpen and/or ignore the RequiredQualifiedAccess best practice with caution as functions (and union cases) with identical names from different modules will silently shadow each other, causing compile errors if the open order changes.

But I agree that omitting stuff is good too. Main thing for me is that AutoOpen is not mentioned without a caveat, and that RQA gets a mention

[IanWitham]

Yeah my RQA example is quite verbose.

[IanWitham]

I've had another attempt at this. updated the same PR

[bartelink]

Merged; For me it's pretty well explained in the PR, and the perfect is the enemy of the good.
If anyone wants to polish, more PRs are always welcome.