Naming (not finding the past discussion on it)

• doc mirrors #[doc(...)]
• description mirrors package.description
• documentation mirrors package.documentation (but that is a URL)

We also tend to not use abbreviations as much. For example, for public-private dependencies, we discussed using pub vs public and went with public

@epage In my opinion, I think this should be doc.

I think we should encourage using this not just for a "description" of a feature but for "documentation" for a feature, and that's supported by the idea of it showing up in rustdoc and allowing markdown.

And I think there's a big difference in length between doc and documentation, compared to the difference between pub and public. (I personally would have gone with pub for that too, based on widespread usage of pub within Rust, but I also think public was less obtrusive because it's fewer characters.)

It's hard enough to get people to write documentation; let's not have any extra friction.

(I personally would have gone with pub for that too, based on widespread usage of pub within Rust, but I also think public was less obtrusive because it's fewer characters.)

Personally, I'd prefer we be consistent and not just focusing on character count.

It's hard enough to get people to write documentation; let's not have any extra friction.

We've shot well past that by requiring a "long form" just to write documentation, hurting both discoverability, character count, and ease of not typing some of those characters on international keyboards.