> Which in turn was inspired by Haskell s `Debug.Trace` functions [2].
According to the RFC, the only inspiration from Debug.Trace was returning the input. The only other mention of haskell in RFCs 2173 and 2361 is the rejection of `show!`.
That might be true but I'd still want a source on that because the assertion makes no sense: aside from the value-returning property, all the overlap between dbg! and Debug.Trace is already covered by println!.
And as far as I can see Debug.Trace doesn't contain anything like dbg!: the closest would be traceShowId, which neither shows the traced expression (before evaluation) nor the location information.
Why don't you commence a formal inquiry, analyze the complete discussion history, acquire a sworn statement from Centril and report your findings here?
It seems weird to get so hung up on the word inspired... but I'm looking forward to the report!
According to the RFC, the only inspiration from Debug.Trace was returning the input. The only other mention of haskell in RFCs 2173 and 2361 is the rejection of `show!`.