We went from spam “news sites” to spam videos. Maybe an “original source” policy should be applied by moderators!

This applies to both hare and on !rust@programming.dev

Doubly linked list is one of std’s collections. And safety in Rust is built on top of unsafely, because there is no way around that.

Did you try to actually look up literally anything before asking?! Because simply checking out std::collections docs would have given you some answers.

^{Who memory-holed 2021 an why❔😉}

They talk too much. But almost none of them actually code or know how to at a good level.

We have someone just like that here.

In case the wording tripped anyone, generators (blocks and functions) have been available for a while as an unstable feature.

This works (playground):

#![feature(gen_blocks)]

gen fn gfn() -> i32 {
    for i in 1..=10 {
        yield i;
    }
}

fn gblock() -> impl Iterator<Item = i32> {
    gen {
        for i in 1..=10 {
            yield i;
        }
    }
}

fn main() {
    for i in gfn() {
        println!("{i} from gfn()");
    }
    for i in gblock() {
        println!("{i} from gblock()");
    }
}

Note that the block-in-fn version works better at this moment (from a developer’s PoV) because rust-analyzer currently treats gfn() as an i32 value. But the block-in-fn pattern works perfectly already.

Hey, posting from Coping People’s Party is cheating.

/mj Let’s keep the language used in your description to the chans. It’s a jerking style violation anyway.

If you’re serious about creating something good/better, you should use alacritty_terminal (not to be confused with the terminal app built on top of it) for low-level (from your PoV) terminal support.

This is something zellij didn’t do. And now they have “basic functionality” bugs like this one open for years.

I also wonder what made you pick screen as a baseline to improve on instead of tmux.

This is neither news*, nor majorly relevant. Having rustc_codegen_gcc as a rustup component is going to be way more relevant, and is much closer to delivery, just to give an example.

* The post itself (not the content of it) appearing on the official blog was sort of pleasantly surprising (brought tears to my eyes, i tell ya). Hopefully that was a result of maturity, rather than external pressure.

Neither.

• make new() give you a fully valid and usable struct value.
• or use a builder (you can call it something else like Partial/Incomplete/whatever) struct so you can’t accidentally do anything without a fully initialized value.

Maybe you should also use substructs that hold some of the info.