- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
use core::convert::Infallible;
fn can_never_fail() -> Result<(), Infallible> {Judging by recently discovered use of
unwrapthis might be a trap for some ;DExpand.
Can’t wait for the never type to be stable :D
I don’t understand why this never type was introduced at all. Instead functions not returning, shouldn’t Rust enforce returning from function and instead use a
Nonein place of never type? Otherwise how will the “Unwinding” of program flow implemented?shouldn’t Rust enforce returning from function
How do you enforce returning from
exitor a function with a loop that never terminates?If it never terminates, then it means it runs forever.
Right, so you can’t “enforce” a return from the function.
shouldn’t Rust enforce returning from function
This is impossible. How would you enforce that? What prevents a function from panicking, aborting the whole process or just going into an infinite loop? All these things correspond to the never type.
I think you’re misunderstanding what the never type is. It’s not equivalent to None at all. It’s a type that doesn’t have any values. This is useful in situations with generic code where for example an error type can be chosen as the never type. Then you could destructure or unwrap a Result without handling the error, cause the type system guarantees the error never occurs.
I think you should read up on the never type a bit more. It’s a perfectly natural part of the type system. In fact you can make your own very easily:
enum Never {}I don’t know where
Nonecomes from (what’s theTinOption<T>?)Assuming you meant
(), that’s a unit type with one valid value. It’s a ZST, but can be created and returned.!is a bottom type. It’s uninhabited. Can’t be created. Functions can never return it because they can never construct it. So why’s this useful? It can be coerced to any type.Because the set of valid values for
!is the null set, by contradiction, there do not exist any values valid for the type!that are invalid for any other typeT. Therefore, all valid values of!are also valid values of any other typeT, and you can always convert from it to any other type.Notably, this is already possible, but language support for it isn’t amazing:
enum A {} fn bar(a: A) { let foo: Box<Arc<Rc<Mutex<String>>>> = match a {} }Heck you can even do this today:
// `loop {}` never returns, so its type is `!`: let blah: String = loop {};To me it makes no sense. Because if it never returns, then it has no return value. Therefore it makes no sense to have a type for something that does not exist.
Because if it never returns, then it has no return value.
Then how would you annotate having no return value?
I guess it makes sense. What I struggled with is, as the type is unusable basically and I didn’t like the idea it being a type. But for documentation reasons, it makes sense. Otherwise, it has no practical meaning. Even a comment could have the same effect.
The never type comes more from type theory and isn’t common in other languages (though TS has
never). Similar to 0 or the null set, it exists as a “base case” for types. For example, where you have unions ofT1 | T2 | ..., the “empty union” is the never type. Similarly, for set theory, a union of no sets is the null set, and in algebra, the summation of no numbers is 0.In practice, because it can’t be constructed, it can be used in unique ways. These properties happen to be super useful in niche places.
It’s because they wanted to hack control flow functionality into expressions. Returning None is actually returning something, but never is just a placeholder for any type when they want to do things that may exit the expression entirely. This is an example in the docs
let num: u32 = match get_a_number() { Some(num) => num, None => break, };Break exits the expression without ever producing a value.
This is an unfortunate wart to appease a desire to those that want to be able to write code like they do in legacy languages. There should have been better ways to do this without being a hack IMO
I think you’re misunderstanding the never type. The never type is not a hack at all. It’s a very natural part of the type system. Just as you have the unit type
(), which is the canonical type with only 1 value, you also have the never type, the canonical type with 0 values.This is extremely useful in generic code. See my other comment in this thread.
This is an unfortunate wart to appease a desire to those that want to be able to write code like they do in legacy languages
What do you mean with this? I can’t really decipher it. What alternative to the never type would you want?
