this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
7 points (88.9% liked)

Rust

7219 readers
85 users here now

Welcome to the Rust community! This is a place to discuss about the Rust programming language.

Wormhole

!performance@programming.dev

Credits

  • The icon is a modified version of the official rust logo (changing the colors to a gradient and black background)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When returning an immutable reference to a private struct field. (On mobile and used vertical bars instead of a bunch of HTML codes)

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hallettj@beehaw.org 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You may be better off with &[String] as a read-only view of Vec. To get &[&str] I think you need to create a new collection to hold the &str values. (String and &str have different memory representations.) But the choice depends on what you want to do - maybe providing &str values adds a convenience that is worth creating a second collection.

For the Option case I would go with Option<&[String]>. My understanding is that Option<&T> is the same size as &T for any T so an owned Option wrapper is zero-cost. If the reference pointer is null then Rust interprets that as None. Besides you usually want ownership of an Option so you can map it or whatever else you want to do.

[–] jpfreely@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

Right, I want the convenience of &[&str] , but if it requires creating a second collection then I think &[String] is better. Use cases that require &str can just map to as_str.

[–] rust@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Why not &[String]?

[–] heartlessevil@lemmy.one 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

A vec and a string are basically the same thing (a series of bytes)

In the context of vectors I prefer my APIs to return an empty set rather than an None-option. This makes handling it much easier because you can still iterate over it, it just has nothing.

This might involve the compiler making an allocation of an empty array but most of them (gcc, ghc) will now what you are doing and optimize the null check on the empty array to a bool check.

[–] hallettj@beehaw.org 2 points 2 years ago

In the context of vectors I prefer my APIs to return an empty set rather than an None-option. This makes handling it much easier because you can still iterate over it, it just has nothing.

I can see that argument. But you can also iterate over an Option-wrapped response with something like for x in xs.into_iter().flatten() { ... }, and the Option gives you an extra bit of information that can be helpful in certain cases.

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago

Vec::new is const and thus can’t allocate anyways.