add edition field to rustfmt.toml file #22
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This is important. Without this line, any invocation of `rustfmt` directly is going to read rustfmt.toml, but fall back to the default edition, which is 2015 (or was until recently). This causes the code to be formatted slightly differently from someone who runs `cargo fmt`. The latter looks up the edition from the Cargo.toml file. In Emacs for example the standard way to use rustfmt is via the binary directly and *not* via Cargo. So any editor / tooling that works like Emacs will produce wrongly formatted code despite the fact that rustfmt is used.
tcoratger
approved these changes
Dec 10, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is important. Without this line, any invocation of
rustfmtdirectly is going to read rustfmt.toml, but fall back to the default edition, which is 2015 (or was until recently). This causes the code to be formatted slightly differently from someone who runscargo fmt. The latter looks up the edition from the Cargo.toml file.In Emacs for example the standard way to use rustfmt is via the binary directly and not via Cargo. So any editor / tooling that works like Emacs will produce wrongly formatted code despite the fact that rustfmt is used.
@tcoratger This was the reason my code was wrongly formatted the other day in Plonky3. I think we should adopt this for the other repos as well.