Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rust 1.45

blog.rust-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 227 posts

Re: Rust 1.45

#11

Post by ansible »

angrygoat wrote: post #8

This rather niche fixing of unsafe behaviour is excellent: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/07/16/Rust-1.45.0.html#fixin... I spent a few years as a scientific programmer and this is exactly the sort of thing that just bites you on the behind in C/C++/Fortran: the undefined behaviour can actually manifest as noise in your output, or just really hard to track down, intermittent problems. A big win to get rid of it.

It is nice that they have defined behavior for that now.

Though I try to always scrutinize any floating-point / integer conversions during code reviews. The default casting of a floating point value to integer is frequently not what you want, however. In the code we do, for example, you will usually round to the nearest integer instead, we don't normally need the more fancy rounding schemes.

Re: Rust 1.45

#12

Post by davrosthedalek »

angrygoat wrote: post #8

This rather niche fixing of unsafe behaviour is excellent: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/07/16/Rust-1.45.0.html#fixin... I spent a few years as a scientific programmer and this is exactly the sort of thing that just bites you on the behind in C/C++/Fortran: the undefined behaviour can actually manifest as noise in your output, or just really hard to track down, intermittent problems. A big win to get rid of it.

I'm not sure I understand this. Does it not produce a run time error? Why not?

This looks very dangerous, because it essentially does the "nearest to right" thing. Say, you cast 256 to a u8, it's then saturated to 255. That's almost right, and a result might be wrong only by 0.5%. Much harder to detect than if it is set to 0.

Re: Rust 1.45

#14

Post by p4bl0 »

By any chance if anyone is in the Paris area and is interested to teach Rust at university next year during the first semester. Please get in touch :).

Re: Rust 1.45

#16

Post by [deleted] »

davrosthedalek wrote: post #12
angrygoat wrote: post #8

This rather niche fixing of unsafe behaviour is excellent: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/07/16/Rust-1.45.0.html#fixin... I spent a few years as a scientific programmer and this is exactly the sort of thing that just bites you on the behind in C/C++/Fortran: the undefined behaviour can actually manifest as noise in your output, or just really hard to track down, intermittent problems. A big win to get rid of it.

I'm not sure I understand this. Does it not produce a run time error? Why not? This looks very dangerous, because it essentially does the "nearest to right" thing. Say, you cast 256 to a u8, it's then saturated to 255. That's almost right, and a result might be wrong only by 0.5%. Much harder to detect than if it is set to 0.

[deleted]

Re: Rust 1.45

#18

Post by [deleted] »

davrosthedalek wrote: post #12
angrygoat wrote: post #8

This rather niche fixing of unsafe behaviour is excellent: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/07/16/Rust-1.45.0.html#fixin... I spent a few years as a scientific programmer and this is exactly the sort of thing that just bites you on the behind in C/C++/Fortran: the undefined behaviour can actually manifest as noise in your output, or just really hard to track down, intermittent problems. A big win to get rid of it.

I'm not sure I understand this. Does it not produce a run time error? Why not? This looks very dangerous, because it essentially does the "nearest to right" thing. Say, you cast 256 to a u8, it's then saturated to 255. That's almost right, and a result might be wrong only by 0.5%. Much harder to detect than if it is set to 0.

[deleted]

Re: Rust 1.45

#19

Post by dagmx »

baseballdork wrote: post #9

> array[i] will check to make sure that array has at least i elements. At least i+1 elements, right? Or am I getting caught up by one of the three hardest problems again?

Edit: brain not woken up yet. It’s because of zero indexing.

———-

Original question: Out of curiosity, why the +1?

Re: Rust 1.45

#20

Post by tinalumfoil »

davrosthedalek wrote: post #12
angrygoat wrote: post #8

This rather niche fixing of unsafe behaviour is excellent: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/07/16/Rust-1.45.0.html#fixin... I spent a few years as a scientific programmer and this is exactly the sort of thing that just bites you on the behind in C/C++/Fortran: the undefined behaviour can actually manifest as noise in your output, or just really hard to track down, intermittent problems. A big win to get rid of it.

I'm not sure I understand this. Does it not produce a run time error? Why not? This looks very dangerous, because it essentially does the "nearest to right" thing. Say, you cast 256 to a u8, it's then saturated to 255. That's almost right, and a result might be wrong only by 0.5%. Much harder to detect than if it is set to 0.

Most floating points aren't integers anyway, so if you think of it as casting 256 to the nearest u8 it's correct, same as rounding 0.25 to 0.

NaN to 0 is a bit more concerning, but inconvienence and compatibility need to be weighed against catching every error (no type system will catch every bug).

Post reply on HN