Is this really better?

[Nodrance]

I got a "needless range lint" for this code

for i in 0..self.height() {
    for j in 0..SHAPE_SIZE {
        if !support_map[i][j] {
            self.layers[i].parts[j].shatter();
        }
    }
}

The suggested "improvement" is this

for (i, layer) in self.layers().iter().enumerate().take(self.height()) {
    for (j, part) in layer.parts.iter().enumerate() { //.take(SHAPE_SIZE) suggested but not needed since that's the size of each layer already
        if !support_map[i][j] {
            part.shatter();
        }
    }
}

To me at least, this makes the code much less readable. Rather than making it clear that we're iterating over every element in the support map and shattering the corrosponding part if it's not supported, it instead suggests that we add a bunch of enumerate calls which (again, to me at least) obscures the connection and makes it slightly less obvious what's going on.

Is this code really better? Can someone explain why? I don't see it but I want to find alternate viewpoints here. It feels like a blanket rule of "using iterators is always better than indexing anywhere it's possible to use them" is taking precedent over a more specific rule like "sometimes indexing two things with the same variable makes it more obvious what's going on"

[Nodrance]

hm, the markdown is being weird

[Nodrance]

While looking for a minimal example I found a seemingly obvious case where the lint doesn't trigger

struct Tower {
    layers: [bool; 5],
}
fn main() {
    let tower = Tower {
        layers: [true; 5],
    };
    let mut test = true;
    for i in 0..5 {
        test &= tower.layers[i];
    }
    print!("{}", test);
}

[flip1995]

Without the other context of your code, I think that the iterator variant is better. More verbose, but better. I can see already in the loop headers that we're iterating over layers and then each part of the layer. So this gives us confidence, that we won't go out of bounds for those two.

This is a style lint and with that pretty opinionated. It is totally fair to just disable it, if you don't like what it suggests.