Cool, but actually it was just 0x0A all along! The symbolic representation was always just an alias. It didn’t actually go through 81 generations of rustc to get back to “where it really came from”, as you’d be able to see if you could see the real binary behind the symbols. Yes I am just being a bit silly for fun, but at the same time, I know I personally often commit the error of imagining that my representations and abstractions are the real thing, and forgetting that they’re really just headstuff.
The point of the article, that a lot of people in the comments seem to be missing, is that this alias is not defined in the SOURCE CODE of the foo. And not in the rust compiler. And Rust compiler is compiled... Using Rust compiler! So if you follow the source code, there's no definition, anywhere - that is, unless you have a knowledge (that isn't there in the source code, not in the latest revision at least), that the Rust compiler wasn't always compiled in Rust compiler (duh!) and you know where it was compiled. So the definition of this alias is an information that is somewhat "parasitic", secondary, embedded implicitly, like non-DNA information inherited from your parents, known as "Epigenetic mechanisms" (not memes).
Yeah, but my point is, it’s 0A in the compiler’s binary. ‘\n’ is just its name. If you could somehow see inline where the name maps to in the binary, you’d be able to go look at it.
