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

  • orangeboats@lemmy.world
    1·
    1 year ago

    so there must be some reason why they went this design.

    Some applications have a hard zero-alloc requirement.

    • realharo
      1·
      1 year ago

      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_unchecked

      But 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.