this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
16 points (100.0% liked)
Learning Rust and Lemmy
460 readers
7 users here now
Welcome
A collaborative space for people to work together on learning Rust, learning about the Lemmy code base, discussing whatever confusions or difficulties we're having in these endeavours, and solving problems, including, hopefully, some contributions back to the Lemmy code base.
Rules TL;DR: Be nice, constructive, and focus on learning and working together on understanding Rust and Lemmy.
Running Projects
Policies and Purposes
- This is a place to learn and work together.
- Questions and curiosity is welcome and encouraged.
- This isn't a technical support community. Those with technical knowledge and experienced aren't obliged to help, though such is very welcome. This is closer to a library of study groups than stackoverflow. Though, forming a repository of useful information would be a good side effect.
- This isn't an issue tracker for Lemmy (or Rust) or a place for suggestions. Instead, it's where the nature of an issue, what possible solutions might exist and how they could be or were implemented can be discussed, or, where the means by which a particular suggestion could be implemented is discussed.
See also:
Rules
- Lemmy.ml rule 2 applies strongly: "Be respectful, even when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome" (see Dessalines's post). This is a constructive space.
- Don't demean, intimidate or do anything that isn't constructive and encouraging to anyone trying to learn or understand. People should feel free to ask questions, be curious, and fill their gaps knowledge and understanding.
- Posts and comments should be (more or less) within scope (on which see Policies and Purposes above).
- See the Lemmy Code of Conduct
- Where applicable, rules should be interpreted in light of the Policies and Purposes.
Relevant links and Related Communities
Thumbnail and banner generated by ChatGPT.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ok, so the first exercise here
1-basic-syntax/01.rsthrows me a little bit. With the compiler error it's easy enough to fix, but conceptually I didn't actually have this down.This function is invalid. The crucial error from the compiler is:
So the quick fix it needs is a return type. That's fine.
The bits that throw me are:
()).let v = a * b;rust is happy to infer thatv: i32, why not a function's return? I'd guess some policy of ensuring function declarations are clean with respect to types and reaping the compiling and safety features that follow that.I think I have some answers for you if you haven't resolved them yet:
voidfrom java- and c-style languages. Here is a decent explanation on StackOverflow if you prefer that sort of thing.And "sadly" (for us here), this doesn't explicitly say "I am expecting an int/i32 as output of
multiply", it only says "I am expecting something that implements theDisplaytrait". I think that in such cases it defaults to assuming the unit type()because it is the "simplest"/"most conservative" guess the compiler can make in such cases.Thanks!! Very helpful!
I found a more precise answer re: type inference: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24977365/differences-in-type-inference-for-closures-and-functions-in-rust
As I understand it, if a function is public you will need to explicit the return type. If it's private/local/not visible from outside the module wherein it is defined, then inference can kick in.
But generally, you'll want to specify the return type to make the compiler that much more aware of your intent.
That makes a lot of sense. Intuitively I figured it would be something like that.
Still, as a compilation error, it’s confusing to see an error on the unit type being inconsistent when the issue is really an untyped return. Though now I know what the unit type is it’s a bit clearer what such a compiler error is about.
I’m not so sure that this is the issue. I understood that blocks are expressions. The issue was that I didn’t know that type inference doesn’t apply to function returns (generally). That such is not true is easy to guess, but I’d presumed as much because the task of inferring seemed no more difficult than local variable type inference.
And so given that it’s such a simple and essential requirement, I’m not sure it wouldn’t be simpler and better to have a compiler error that simply states that an explicit return type is required.
Seeing instead that the return type was understood to be the unit type is also confusing as the function block clearly had a return value (here, AFAIU, explicit/implicit return makes no difference). So instead of wondering about the need for an explicit return type I immediately wondered about what type the function was actually returning (ie, had I accidentally created
()).Of course I didn’t know about the unit type etc. But even so, as a compiler error, it’s represented in pieces rather than cutting to the core requirement of an explicit return type. Perhaps a reminder better left to a linter. I’d guess clippy warns you about this, but I thought I’d just rely on the compiler for as long as I can.