Begin rant.

When a programming language has an edge (not even a corner) case commonly requiring the direct expression by the developer of types like,

core::iter::Zip<core::iter::FilterMap<'_, (&std::collections::hash::set::HashSet<attr::Attribute>, &attr::Attribute), &attr::Attribute, core::iter::Zip<core::iter::Repeat<&std::collections::hash::set::HashSet<attr::Attribute>>, core::iter::Map<', (&attr::Attribute, &()), &attr::Attribute, std::collections::hash::map::Entries<', attr::Attribute, ()>>>>, core::iter::FilterMap<', (&std::collections::hash::set::HashSet<attr::Attribute>, &attr::Attribute), &attr::Attribute, core::iter::Zip<core::iter::Repeat<&std::collections::hash::set::HashSet<attr::Attribute>>, core::iter::Map<', (&attr::Attribute, &()), &attr::Attribute, std::collections::hash::map::Entries<'_, attr::Attribute, ()>>>>>,

how does fixing this not take the absolute highest priority?

>>40
I meant what I said, fully qualified paths are important. You need to be able to canonicalize in the case of aliases, which is why you see core:: up there when the program that produced it doesn't even refer to core. The original author of the text in >>1 was being an idiot. They didn't instantiate their type correctly and got that mess, then complained they had to express that type directly.

If you saw that in C++, you would assume some kind of template explosion. You wouldn't see it in Haskell or OCaml because that's fucking insane, and not how parameterization works in either of them. This being a parameterization error, not many languages have anything to say about that in their module system anyway.