The ???? operator
The ???? operator
I found this funny.
The context is as explained by @laund@hachyderm.io
the issue is that you can't return from inside a closure, since the closure might be called later/elsewhere
and this post was the asnwer to the question by @antonok@fosstodon.org
you got me curious what the record for the longest
?operator chain on crates.io is
Original post: https://fosstodon.org/users/antonok/statuses/111134824451525448
You're viewing a single thread.
Is everyone genuinely liking this!
This is, IMHO, not a good style.
Isn't something like this much clearer?
// Add `as_cstr()` to `NixPath` trait first let some_or_null_cstr = |v| v.map(NixPath::as_cstr) .unwrap_or(Ok(std::ptr::null())); // `Option::or_null_cstr()` for `OptionᐸTᐳ` // where `T: NixPath` would make this even better let source_cstr = some_or_null_cstr(＆source)?; let target_cstr = target.as_cstr()?; let fs_type_cstr = some_or_null_cstr(＆fs_type)?; let data_cstr = some_or_null_cstr(＆data)?; let res = unsafe { .. };Edit: using alternative chars to circumvent broken Lemmy sanitization.
I think the issue with this is that the code (https://docs.rs/nix/0.27.1/src/nix/lib.rs.html#297) allocates a fixed-size buffer on the stack in order to add a terminating zero to the end of the path copied into it. So it just gives you a reference into that buffer, which can't outlive the function call.
They do also have a
with_nix_path_allocatingfunction (https://docs.rs/nix/0.27.1/src/nix/lib.rs.html#332) that just gives you aCStringthat owns its buffer on the heap, so there must be some reason why they went this design. Maybe premature optimization? Maybe it actually makes a difference? 🤔They could have just returned the buffer via some wrapper that owns it and has the
as_cstrfunction on it, but that would have resulted in a copy, so I'm not sure if it would have still achieved what they are trying to achieve here. I wonder if they ran some benchmarks on all this stuff, or they're just writing what they think will be fast.so there must be some reason why they went this design.
Some applications have a hard zero-alloc requirement.
But that's not the case here, seeing as they have
if self.len() >= MAX_STACK_ALLOCATION { return with_nix_path_allocating(self, f); }in the code of with_nix_path. And I think they still could've made it return the value instead of calling the passed in function, by using something like
enum NixPathValue { Short(MaybeUninitᐸ[u8; 1024]>, usize), Long(CString) } impl NixPathValue { fn as_c_str(＆self) -> ＆CStr { // ... impl NixPath for [u8] { fn to_nix_path(＆self) -> ResultᐸNixPathValue> { // return Short(buf, self.len()) for short paths, and perform all checks here, // so that NixPathValue.as_c_str can then use CStr::from_bytes_with_nul_uncheckedBut I don't know what performance implications that would have, and whether the difference would matter at all. Would there be an unnecessary copy? Would the compiler optimize it out? etc.
Also, from a maintainability standpoint, the context through which the library authors need to manually ensure all the unsafe code is used correctly would be slightly larger.
As a user of a library, I would still prefer all that over the nesting.