@[email protected] to Programmer [email protected] • 10 months agoknow the features of your languagelemmy.worldimagemessage-square147fedilinkarrow-up1647arrow-down124
arrow-up1623arrow-down1imageknow the features of your languagelemmy.world@[email protected] to Programmer [email protected] • 10 months agomessage-square147fedilink
minus-square@words_numberlink2•10 months agoI think you could even get rid of the iter() and the collect() since it’s a small fixed size array.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•edit-210 months agoYep [T;N] has a direct implementation of map. "{:?}" is necessary because arrays aren’t Display but you could get around that by saying ["1", "not a number", "3"].map(|n| println!("{}", n.parse().unwrap_or(0))); but now I’m golfing. Also for n in ["1", "not a number", "3"] { println!("{}", n.parse().unwrap_or(0)) } is more idiomatic I shouldn’t let my Haskell get the better of me. That does use Iterator, not that it makes a difference here.
I think you could even get rid of the
iter()and thecollect()since it’s a small fixed size array.Yep
[T;N]has a direct implementation ofmap."{:?}"is necessary because arrays aren’tDisplaybut you could get around that by saying["1", "not a number", "3"].map(|n| println!("{}", n.parse().unwrap_or(0)));but now I’m golfing. Also
for n in ["1", "not a number", "3"] { println!("{}", n.parse().unwrap_or(0)) }is more idiomatic I shouldn’t let my Haskell get the better of me. That does use
Iterator, not that it makes a difference here.