Definitely the second one.
- It avoids Mut
- It makes clear that the initialization is over at the end of of the statement. The first option invites people to change some more properties hundreds of lines down where you won't see them.
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
16 points (86.4% liked)
Rust Programming
8163 readers
4 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Neither.
- make
new()give you a fully valid and usable struct value. - or use a builder (you can call it something else like Partial/Incomplete/whatever) struct so you can't accidentally do anything without a fully initialized value.
Maybe you should also use substructs that hold some of the info.
We used to have TypedBuilder (which is builder pattern), but switched to DeriveNew, as its a bit cleaner, and requires less generated code.
100% the second one. It's the idiomatic way to do this in Rust, and it leaves you with an immutable object.
I personally like to move the short declarations together (i.e. body down with language_id (or both at the top)) but that's a minor quibble.
Second one if a constructor or a builder is not an option. 1 is out of the question.
Why are the Lemmy devs asking for this though?
To decide if I should merge the linked PR or not (I did merge it).
Defo the second one, the first is weird imo
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Thanks for the feedback! Personally I prefer the first option, but based on your comments I will merge the PR with the second option.
If you're ever forced to do something the second way, you can also wrap it in braces, that way you end up with an immutable value again:
let app = {
let mut app = ...
...
app
};
Why not just a let app = app; line after the let mut app = ...; one?
A scope groups the initialization visually together, while adding the let app = app; feels like it just adds clutter - I'd probably just leave it mut in that case.
Rebinding with and without mut is a known and encouraged pattern in rust. Leaving things as mut longer than necessary is not.
But a scope adds a nesting level which adds a lot more visual clutter.
Thats even more verbose so the second option is better.
Yeah if you have the second option, use it, but if the struct has private fields it won't work.
The first one won't work either for private fields.
You can have setters that set private fields, there are also sometimes structs with mixed private and public fields
But why not use a proper builder pattern in that case?
Because you don't control third party libraries
also adding my vote for the second one
I prefer to encapsulate a mutable reference to the instance in a scope.
let post_form = {
let mut post_form = PostInsertForm::new(
// your constructor arguments
);
post_form.some_mutating_method(
// mutation arguments
);
post_form
};
This way you're left with an immutable instance and you encapsulate all of the logic needed to setup the instance in one place.
@livingcoder @nutomic that's a nice one. Had never thought of it. But I'd just use the builder pattern.
Even if you were using the builder pattern, this maintains the immutable variable in the parent scope while you use the mutable variable's builder pattern methods (basically exactly as my example demonstrates) in the inner scope.
edit: Oh, I think you mean you would chain the builder pattern calls and assign it to an immutable variable. Sure, that makes sense if you own the struct.