Dioxus Labs + “High-level Rust (dioxus.notion.site)

submitted 2 years ago by secana@programming.dev to c/rust@programming.dev

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] taladar@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

There are a few very questionable things in there. Unwrap should literally never appear in production code so if your code base uses it so often that you want a short-hand syntax for it that calls into doubt everything else you wrote.

[-] cbarrick@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Unwrap should literally never appear in production code

Unwrap comes up all the time in the standard library.

For example, if you know you're popping from a non-empty vector, unwrap is totally the right too for the job. There are tons of circumstances where you know at higher levels that edge cases defended against at lower levels with Option cannot occur.

[-] BB_C@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

(DISCLAIMER: I haven't read the post yet.)

For example, if you know you’re popping from a non-empty vector, unwrap is totally the right too(l) for the job.

That would/should be .expect(). You register your assumption once, at the source level, and at the panic level if the assumption ever gets broken. And it's not necessarily a (local) logical error that may cause this. It could be a logical error somewhere else, or a broken running environment where sound logic is broken by hardware or external system issues.

If you would be writing comments around your .unwrap()s anyway (which you should be), then .expect() is a strictly superior choice.

One could say .unwrap() was a mistake. It's not even that short of a shortcut (typing wise). And the maximumly lazy could have always written .expect("") instead anyway.