4 ms·
I never claimed that Rust was better in this regard, I merely pointed out that getting metadata from a path is not the only way. Filesystem handling is not tri
by tijsvd 6y ago
I never claimed that Rust was better in this regard, I merely pointed out that getting metadata from a path is not the only way.
Filesystem handling is not trivial, and some knowledge is required beyond the language itself. I do think that File::metadata and Path::metadata make a nice API together (better than lstat, stat, and fstat).
As for C not allowing two functions with the same name, sure, but then it doesn't have namespaces. In a nicely designed C library for file handling, these functions might well be called std_path_metadata and std_file_metadata, which boils down to the same thing.
- acqq 6y agoYou haven't answered my question? How I as a reader see which of the functions with different semantic but named the same was used in the Rust version, and how Rust helps me for that?
- tijsvd 6y agoAh right. I misunderstood your question. No, Rust won't help you with that. On the contrary, Rust has excellent type inference, and in this case the name belongs to a type, which itself is inferred. As a casual reader, you'd have to track the documentation on the preceding calls.
- acqq 6y agoThat‘s not different from C++ however.