4 ms·

You're skipping half the recommendation though: > Array indexing must be properly tested, or the get method should be used to return an Option. Fwiw, for anyo

You're skipping half the recommendation though: > Array indexing must be properly tested, or the get method should be used to return an Option. Fwiw, for anyone who’s dabbled with Haskell this is SOP. Any result that could be undefined is returned as a Maybe (Haskell’s version of Option). If this seems odd to anyone, understanding it in Haskell will probably help understand it better in Rust too: http://learnyouahaskell.com/a-fistful-of-monads#getting-our-feet-wet-with-maybe http://learnyouahaskell.com/a-fistful-of-monads#getting-our-... https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Understanding_monads/Maybe https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Understanding_monads/M...

geofft 7y ago
Er, don't Haskell's head and (!!) functions default to throwing an exception? $ ghci Prelude> let a = [3, 4, 5] Prelude> a !! 0 3 Prelude> a !! 3 *** Exception: Prelude.(!!): index too large Prelude> head [] *** Exception: Prelude.head: empty list I don't think Haskell is really different from Rust in this respect. Both have a wrapper type for optional values with good syntax, but in both, there's still some syntax so common operations sometimes choose to skip it. In fact, Hoogle doesn't seem to find me a function like Rust's .get() in the standard library, just a handful of third-party packages: https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=%5Ba%5D+-%3E+Int+-%3E+Maybe+a&scope=set%3Astackage https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=%5Ba%5D+-%3E+Int+-%3E+May...
- EvilTerran 7y ago
  > Hoogle doesn't seem to find me a function like Rust's .get() in the standard library In practice, you don't really need one - the safe alternative to "xs !! n" is pattern-matching on the result of "drop n xs", as that's [] if xs has ≤n elements: https://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/standard-prelude.html#$vdrop https://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/standard-prelude.html#$...
  - masklinn 7y ago
    > In practice, you don't really need one - the safe alternative to "xs !! n" is pattern-matching on the result of "drop n xs", as that's [] if xs has ≤n elements: Great so instead of `xs !! n` you're supposed to write case drop n xs of [] -> … x :: _ -> … that seems… less than likely?
  - geofft 7y ago
    Sure, that seems syntactically more cumbersome than 'if let Some(foo) = xs.get(n)' or 'xs.get(n).map(|foo| ...)' in Rust, but yes, you can do it. As I said, because both the Rust and Haskell versions are more cumbersome than using the version that raises an exception/panics, both Rust and Haskell's standard libraries choose to give you a syntactically-easier alternative that isn't a total function. All I'm saying is that Haskell doesn't seem to do anything different here - Rust has incorporated the lessons from Haskell's type system. (As someone who fell in love with Haskell a long time ago but never got to use it professionally, this is basically why I like Rust.) Is there something Haskell does that Rust does not do? I'm not trying to say Haskell is insufficient - I'm just refuting the claim that Rust is insufficient and should act more like Haskell.
    - EvilTerran 7y ago
      Sure, I don't disagree - I meant only to add context for anyone reading who was unfamiliar with Haskell, lest they come away with the impression that the lack of a .get()-equivalent was some kind of egregious oversight.
- olalonde 7y ago
  This was posted on /r/rust a couple days ago: https://notes.iveselov.info/cheatsheet-rust-option-vs-haskell-maybe https://notes.iveselov.info/cheatsheet-rust-option-vs-haskel...
jeadfa 7y ago
The Travelers Talk – Getting Your Travel Information ... https://thetravelerstalk.com/ https://thetravelerstalk.com/
masklinn 7y ago
> Fwiw, for anyone who’s dabbled with Haskell this is SOP. Any result that could be undefined is returned as a Maybe (Haskell’s version of Option). It would be nice if that were true but that ain't exactly the case is it? AFAIK exhaustive pattern matching still isn't enabled by default, and the prelude is full of partial functions, especially on lists (to such an extent that GHC has a utility function just for blowing up on empty lists: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.12.0.0/docs/GHC-List.html#v:errorEmptyList https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.12.0.0/docs/GHC-L...)

geofft 7y ago

Er, don't Haskell's head and (!!) functions default to throwing an exception? $ ghci Prelude> let a = [3, 4, 5] Prelude> a !! 0 3 Prelude> a !! 3 *** Exception: Prelude.(!!): index too large Prelude> head [] *** Exception: Prelude.head: empty list I don't think Haskell is really different from Rust in this respect. Both have a wrapper type for optional values with good syntax, but in both, there's still some syntax so common operations sometimes choose to skip it. In fact, Hoogle doesn't seem to find me a function like Rust's .get() in the standard library, just a handful of third-party packages: https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=%5Ba%5D+-%3E+Int+-%3E+Maybe+a&scope=set%3Astackage https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=%5Ba%5D+-%3E+Int+-%3E+May...

EvilTerran 7y ago
> Hoogle doesn't seem to find me a function like Rust's .get() in the standard library In practice, you don't really need one - the safe alternative to "xs !! n" is pattern-matching on the result of "drop n xs", as that's [] if xs has ≤n elements: https://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/standard-prelude.html#$vdrop https://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/standard-prelude.html#$...
- masklinn 7y ago
  > In practice, you don't really need one - the safe alternative to "xs !! n" is pattern-matching on the result of "drop n xs", as that's [] if xs has ≤n elements: Great so instead of `xs !! n` you're supposed to write case drop n xs of [] -> … x :: _ -> … that seems… less than likely?
- geofft 7y ago
  Sure, that seems syntactically more cumbersome than 'if let Some(foo) = xs.get(n)' or 'xs.get(n).map(|foo| ...)' in Rust, but yes, you can do it. As I said, because both the Rust and Haskell versions are more cumbersome than using the version that raises an exception/panics, both Rust and Haskell's standard libraries choose to give you a syntactically-easier alternative that isn't a total function. All I'm saying is that Haskell doesn't seem to do anything different here - Rust has incorporated the lessons from Haskell's type system. (As someone who fell in love with Haskell a long time ago but never got to use it professionally, this is basically why I like Rust.) Is there something Haskell does that Rust does not do? I'm not trying to say Haskell is insufficient - I'm just refuting the claim that Rust is insufficient and should act more like Haskell.
  - EvilTerran 7y ago
    Sure, I don't disagree - I meant only to add context for anyone reading who was unfamiliar with Haskell, lest they come away with the impression that the lack of a .get()-equivalent was some kind of egregious oversight.
olalonde 7y ago
This was posted on /r/rust a couple days ago: https://notes.iveselov.info/cheatsheet-rust-option-vs-haskell-maybe https://notes.iveselov.info/cheatsheet-rust-option-vs-haskel...

jeadfa 7y ago

The Travelers Talk – Getting Your Travel Information ... https://thetravelerstalk.com/ https://thetravelerstalk.com/

masklinn 7y ago

> Fwiw, for anyone who’s dabbled with Haskell this is SOP. Any result that could be undefined is returned as a Maybe (Haskell’s version of Option). It would be nice if that were true but that ain't exactly the case is it? AFAIK exhaustive pattern matching still isn't enabled by default, and the prelude is full of partial functions, especially on lists (to such an extent that GHC has a utility function just for blowing up on empty lists: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.12.0.0/docs/GHC-List.html#v:errorEmptyList https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.12.0.0/docs/GHC-L...)