9
Just call clone (or alias) · baby steps (smallcultfollowing.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/rust@programming.dev
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I was under the impression that the compiler already optimizes out a lot of clones where the clone is primarily used to satisfy the borrow checker. Is that not the case?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 year ago*

    I would say depends but generally I would think not? I mean say you clone a string because you move it in one place and also need to borrow it in another place. So you clone to avoid the borrow checker erroring out on that. As far as I know, there will be two different strings created with separate allocations and all (but I could be wrong).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Really not a fan of this approach. Makes the order of operations extremely weird. I would much prefer having super blocks that are explicitly inserted in the above scope. I.e. this:

    tokio::task::spawn(async move {
    do_something_else_with(
        super { self.some_a.clone() },
        super { self.some_a.clone() },
        super { self.some_a.clone() },
    )
});

    Would desugar to:

    tokio::task::spawn({
    let first_block = { self.some_a.clone() };
    let second_block = { self.some_a.clone() };
    let third_block = { self.some_a.clone() };
    async move {
        do_something_else_with(
            first_block,
            second_block,
            third_block,
        )
    }
});

    Only problem is if the clone is inside another block... but perhaps you could do super super { ... }? But that sort of gets crazy and makes it very hard to read again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I like this solution more too, what about something like?

    code examples

    {
    spawn(async move {
        do_something_else_with(
            ^{ self.some_a.clone() },
            ^{ self.some_a.clone() },
            ^{ self.some_a.clone() },
        )
    });
}

    Which desugars to

    {
    let (a, b, c) = (self.some_a.clone(), self.some_a.clone(), self.some_a.clone());
    
    spawn(async move {
        do_something_else_with(a, b, c)
    });
}

    Then have like

    'super1: {
    'super2: {
        spawn(async move {
            do_something_else_with(
                ^super1: { self.some_a.clone() },
                ^super1: { self.some_a.clone() },
                ^super1: { self.some_a.clone() },
            )
        });
    }
}

    Which desugars to

    'super1: {
    let (a, b, c) = (self.some_a.clone(), self.some_a.clone(), self.some_a.clone());

    'super2: {
        spawn(async move {
            do_something_else_with(a, b, c)
        });
    }
}

    And finally, the harder to read

    'super1: {
    'super2: {
        spawn(async move {
            do_something_else_with(
                ^^{ self.some_a.clone() },
                ^^{ self.some_a.clone() },
                ^^{ self.some_a.clone() },
            )
        });
    }
}

    Which desugars to

    'super1: {
    let (a, b, c) = (self.some_a.clone(), self.some_a.clone(), self.some_a.clone());

    'super2: {
        spawn(async move {
            do_something_else_with(a, b, c)
        });
    }
}

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    I like the idea of using block labels, but I don't like the ^ symbol. There's already precedent for using keywords before blocks, like with async. There's also already super let in nightly I believe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent