macro_rules! sum {
    ( $initial:expr $(, $expr:expr )* $(,)? ) => {
        $initial $(+ $expr)*
    }
}

fn remove_prefix<'a>(mut original: &'a str, prefix: &str) -> &'a str

let mut up = 1;
    'outer: loop {

Hell I don't want to know what you define as ugly then.

[–] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

Macro syntax technically isn't even Rust
This is definitely not average Rust code.

[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 1 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Sorry, I love Rust but I can't really agree with you here. They only showed a macro_rules! definition, which is definitely rust syntax. Lifetime annotations are relatively common.

I will concede that loop labels are incredibly rare though.

[–] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

https://fprijate.github.io/tlborm/mbe-macro-rules.html#%3A%7E%3Atext=macro_rules%21+With%2Cfollowing+form%3A

[–] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 1 points 4 hours ago

I guess I see what you mean if we want to get very technical about what a syntax extension is. But I think for the purpose of this discussion, it's reasonable to think of macro_rules! as a part of the Rust language. Practically speaking, it is syntax provided by the language team, not just users of the language who are free to extend the syntax by using macro_rules! to do so.

[–] fruitcantfly@programming.dev 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Loop labels are rare, but they lead to much simpler/clearer code when you need them. Consider how you would implement this kind of loop in a language without loop variables:

'outer: while (...) {
    'inner: while (...) {
        if (...) {
            // this breaks out of the outer loop, not just the inner loop
            break 'outer;
        }
    }

    // some code here
}

In C/C++ you'd need to do something like

bool condition = false;
while (...) {
    while (...) {
        if (...) {
            condition = true;
            break;
        }
    }
    if (condition) {
        break;
    }

    // some code here
}

Personally, I wouldn't call it ugly, either, but that's mostly a matter of taste

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 0 points 16 hours ago

Well, you'd typically put the loops into a function and then do an explicit return to jump out of there. I believe, there's some use-cases where this isn't possible, which is why I'm cool with loop labels existing, but I've been coding Rust for seven years and have not needed them once...

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)