No, but then, I haven't seen Forest::default either.
And because Forest::default can be different and I see Default::default often and Forest::default never I would, naturally, assume that this is the case where Forest::default is subtly different and would, probably, try to understand “why”.
I guess after looking of the definition of Forest and/or using rust-analyzer I would understand that it's someone's idea of “simplification”, but for me, at least, such an “improvement” would become a pessimization.
I wonder what others are thinking, though.
P.S. It's place where Rust picked just a tiny bit inconvenient names (as discussed in adjacent thread). I would expect to see Forest::new or Default::default, but not Forest::default. I guess if that Default::default was never, actually, made and we would have had Default::new and Forest::new I would have accepted Forest::new easily. In fact you can still provide it and use it everywhere (although it looks a tiny bit weird when used as ..Forest::new(), but it works just as fine as ..Default()::default and Forest:new not not rare). But Forest::default? Please no: two things for the exact same thing is too much, can we try to avoid adding one more?