16
submitted 1 month ago by nutomic@lemmy.ml to c/rust@lemmy.ml

Which of these code styles do you find preferable?

First option using mut with constructor in the beginning:

  let mut post_form = PostInsertForm::new(
    data.name.trim().to_string(),
    local_user_view.person.id,
    data.community_id,
  );
  post_form.url = url.map(Into::into);
  post_form.body = body;
  post_form.alt_text = data.alt_text.clone();
  post_form.nsfw = data.nsfw;
  post_form.language_id = language_id;

Second option without mut and constructor at the end:

  let post_form = PostInsertForm {
    url: url.map(Into::into),
    body,
    alt_text: data.alt_text.clone(),
    nsfw: data.nsfw,
    language_id,
    ..PostInsertForm::new(
      data.name.trim().to_string(),
      local_user_view.person.id,
      data.community_id,
    )
  };

You can see the full PR here: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/pull/5037/files

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] taladar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Why not just a let app = app; line after the let mut app = ...; one?

[-] al4s@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] BB_C@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

Rebinding with and without mut is a known and encouraged pattern in rust. Leaving things as mut longer than necessary is not.

[-] taladar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

But a scope adds a nesting level which adds a lot more visual clutter.

this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
16 points (86.4% liked)

Rust Programming

8163 readers
16 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS