There are some comments describing multiple subsequent `use` items. When
the big `use` reformatting happens some of these `use` items will be
reordered, possibly moving them away from the comment. With this
additional level of formatting it's not really feasible to have comments
of this type. This commit removes them in various ways:
- merging separate `use` items when appropriate;
- inserting blank lines between the comment and the first `use` item;
- outright deletion (for comments that are relatively low-value);
- adding a separate "top-level" comment.
We also entirely skip formatting for four library files that contain
nothing but `pub use` re-exports, where reordering would be painful.
Many, many projects use `size_of` to get the size of a type. However,
it's also often equally easy to hardcode a size (e.g. `8` instead of
`size_of::<u64>()`). Minimizing friction in the use of `size_of` helps
ensure that people use it and make code more self-documenting.
The name `size_of` is unambiguous: the name alone, without any prefix or
path, is self-explanatory and unmistakeable for any other functionality.
Adding it to the prelude cannot produce any name conflicts, as any local
definition will silently shadow the one from the prelude. Thus, we don't
need to wait for a new edition prelude to add it.
Add `size_of_val`, `align_of`, and `align_of_val` as well, with similar
justification: widely useful, self-explanatory, unmistakeable for
anything else, won't produce conflicts.
