Comment by tialaramex

Comment by tialaramex 2 days ago

15 replies

View on Hacker News

Rust apparently got relatively close to not having &str as a primitive type and instead only providing a library alias to &[u8] when Rust 1.0 shipped.

Score another for Rust's Safety Culture. It would be convenient to just have &str as an alias for &[u8] but if that mistake had been allowed all the safety checking that Rust now does centrally has to be owned by every single user forever. Instead of a few dozen checks overseen by experts there'd be myriad sprinkled across every project and always ready to bite you.

inferiorhuman a day ago

Even so you end up with paper cuts like len which returns the number of bytes.

Reply View 9 replies
  • toast0 a day ago

    The problem with string length is there's probably at least four concepts that could conceivably be called length, and few people are happy when none of them are len.

    Of the top of my head, in order of likely difficulty to calculate: byte length, number of code points, number of grapheme/characters, height/width to display.

    Maybe it would be best for Str not to have len at all. It could have bytes, code_points, graphemes. And every use would be precise.

    Reply View 8 replies
    • stouset a day ago

      > The problem with string length is there's probably at least four concepts that could conceivably be called length.

      The answer here isn't to throw up your hands, pick one, and other cases be damned. It's to expose them all and let the engineer choose. To not beat the dead horse of Rust, I'll point that Ruby gets this right too.

          * String#length                   # count Unicode code units
    * String#bytes#length             # count bytes
    * String#grapheme_clusters#length # count grapheme clusters
      Similarly, each of those "views" lets you slice, index, etc. across those concepts naturally. Golang's string is the worst of them all. They're nominally UTF-8, but nothing actually enforces it. But really they're just buckets of bytes, unless you send them to APIs that silently require them to be UTF-8 and drop them on the floor or misbehave if they're not.

      Height/width to display is font-dependent, so can't just be on a "string" but needs an object with additional context.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • branko_d a day ago

      You could also have the number of code UNITS, which is the route C# took.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • inferiorhuman a day ago

      Problems arise when you try to take a slice of a string and end up picking an index (perhaps based on length) that would split a code point. String/str offers an abstraction over Unicode scalars (code points) via the chars iterator, but it all feels a bit messy to have the byte based abstraction more or less be the default.

      FWIW the docs indicate that working with grapheme clusters will never end up in the standard library.

      Reply View 5 replies
      • xyzzyz a day ago

        You can easily treat `&str` as bytes, just call `.as_bytes()`, and you get `&[u8]`, no questions asked. The reason why you don't want to treat &str as just bytes by default is that it's almost always a wrong thing to do. Moreover, it's the worst kind of a wrong thing, because it actually works correctly 99% of the time, so you might not even realize you have a bug until much too late.

        If your API takes &str, and tries to do byte-based indexing, it should almost certainly be taking &[u8] instead.

        Reply View 3 replies
      • toast0 a day ago

        > but it all feels a bit messy to have the byte based abstraction more or less be the default.

        I mean, really neither should be the default. You should have to pick chars or bytes on use, but I don't think that's palatable; most languages have chosen one or the other as the preferred form. Or some have the joy of being forward thinking in the 90s and built around UCS-2 and later extended to UTF-16, so you've got 16-bit 'characters' with some code points that are two characters. Of course, dealing with operating systems means dealing with whatever they have as well as what the language prefers (or, as discussed elsewhere in this thread, pretending it doesn't exist to make easy things easier and hard things harder)

        Reply View 0 replies
adastra22 a day ago

. (early morning brain fart -- I need my coffee)

Reply View 2 replies
  • tialaramex a day ago

    So it's true that technically the primitive type is str, and indeed it's even possible to make a &mut str though it's quite rare that you'd want to mutably borrow the string slice.

    However no &str is not "an alias for &&String" and I can't quite imagine how you'd think that. String doesn't exist in Rust's core, it's from alloc and thus wouldn't be available if you don't have an allocator.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • zozbot234 a day ago

      str is not really a "primitive type", it only exists abstractly as an argument to type constructors - treating the & operator as a "type constructor" for that purpose, but including Box<>, Rc<>, Arc<> etc. So you can have Box<str> or Arc<str> in addition to &str or perhaps &mut str, but not really 'str' in isolation.

      Reply View 0 replies