-// Rust-101, Part 00: Algebraic datatypes, expressions
-// ===================================================
+// Rust-101, Part 00: Algebraic datatypes
+// ======================================
// As our first piece of Rust code, we want to write a function that computes the
-// minimum of a list. We are going to make use of the standard library, so let's import that:
-
-use std;
-
-// Let us start by thinking about the *type* of our function. Rust forces us to give the types of
-// all arguments, and the return type, before we even start writing the body. In the case of our minimum
-// function, we may be inclined to say that it returns a number. But then we would be in trouble: What's
-// the minimum of an empty list? The type of the function says we have to return *something*.
-// We could just choose 0, but that would be kind of arbitrary. What we need
-// is a type that is "a number, or nothing". Such a type (of multiple exclusive options)
-// is called an "algebraic datatype", and Rust lets us define such types with the keyword `enum`.
-// Coming from C(++), you can think of such a type as a `union`, together with a field that
-// stores the variant of the union that's currently used.
-
+// minimum of a list.
+
+//@ ## Getting started
+//@ Let us start by thinking about the *type* of our function. Rust forces us to give the types of
+//@ all arguments, and the return type, before we even start writing the body. In the case of our minimum
+//@ function, we may be inclined to say that it returns a number. But then we would be in trouble: What's
+//@ the minimum of an empty list? The type of the function says we have to return *something*.
+//@ We could just choose 0, but that would be kind of arbitrary. What we need
+//@ is a type that is "a number, or nothing". Such a type (of multiple exclusive options)
+//@ is called an "algebraic datatype", and Rust lets us define such types with the keyword `enum`.
+//@ Coming from C(++), you can think of such a type as a `union`, together with a field that
+//@ stores the variant of the union that's currently used.
+
+// An `enum` for "a number or nothing" could look as follows:
enum NumberOrNothing {
Number(i32),
Nothing
}
+//@ Notice that `i32` is the type of (signed, 32-bit) integers. To write down the type of
+//@ the minimum function, we need just one more ingredient: `Vec<i32>` is the type of
+//@ (growable) arrays of numbers, and we will use that as our list type.
-// Notice that `i32` is the type of (signed, 32-bit) integers. To write down the type of
-// the minimum function, we need just one more ingredient: `Vec<i32>` is the type of
-// (growable) arrays of numbers, and we will use that as our list type.
// Observe how in Rust, the return type comes *after* the arguments.
-
-fn vec_min_try1(vec: Vec<i32>) -> NumberOrNothing {
- // First, we need some variable to store the minimum as computed so far.
- // Since we start out with nothing computed, this will again be a
- // "number or nothing":
+fn vec_min(vec: Vec<i32>) -> NumberOrNothing {
+ //@ In the function, we first need some variable to store the minimum as computed so far.
+ //@ Since we start out with nothing computed, this will again be a
+ //@ "number or nothing":
let mut min = NumberOrNothing::Nothing;
- // We do not have to write a type next to `min`, Rust can figure that out automatically
- // (a bit like `auto` in C++11). Also notice the `mut`: In Rust, variables are
- // immutable per default, and you need to tell Rust if you want
- // to change a variable later.
+ //@ We do not have to write a type next to `min`, Rust can figure that out automatically
+ //@ (a bit like `auto` in C++11). Also notice the `mut`: In Rust, variables are
+ //@ immutable per default, and you need to tell Rust if you want
+ //@ to change a variable later.
- // Now we want to *iterate* over the list. Rust has some nice syntax for
- // iterators:
+ // Now we want to *iterate* over the list. Rust has some nice syntax for iterators:
for el in vec {
// So `el` is al element of the list. We need to update `min` accordingly, but how do we get the current
// number in there? This is what pattern matching can do:
match min {
+ // In this case (*arm*) of the `match`, `min` is currently nothing, so let's just make it the number `el`.
NumberOrNothing::Nothing => {
- // In this case (*arm*) of the `match`, `min` is currently nothing, so let's just make it the number `el`.
- min = NumberOrNothing::Number(el);
+ min = NumberOrNothing::Number(el); /*@*/
},
+ // In this arm, `min` is currently the number `n`, so let's compute the new minimum and store it.
+ //@ We will write the function `min_i32` just after we completed this one.
NumberOrNothing::Number(n) => {
- // In this arm, `min` is currently the number `n`, so let's compute the new minimum and store it.
- let new_min = std::cmp::min(n, el);
- min = NumberOrNothing::Number(new_min);
+ let new_min = min_i32(n, el); /*@*/
+ min = NumberOrNothing::Number(new_min); /*@*/
}
}
}
return min;
}
-// Phew. We wrote our first Rust function! But all this `NumberOrNothing::` is getting kind of
-// ugly. Can't we do that nicer? Indeed, we can: The following line tells Rust to take
-// the constructors of `NumberOrNothing` into the local namespace:
-use self::NumberOrNothing::{Number,Nothing};
-// Try moving that above the function, and removing all the occurrences `NumberOrNothing::`.
-// Things should still compile, now being much less verbose!
-
-// There is more prettification we can do. To understand how, it is important to
-// understand that Rust is an "expression-based" language. This means that most of the
-// terms you write down are not just *statements* (executing code), but *expressions*
-// (returning a value). This applies even to the body of entire functions!
-
-// For example, consider `sqr`:
-fn sqr(i: i32) -> i32 { i * i }
-// Between the curly braces, we are giving the *expression* that computes the return value.
-// So we can just write `i * i`, the expression that returns the square if `i`!
-// This is very close to how mathematicians write down functions (but with more types).
-
-// Conditionals are also just expressions. You can compare this to the ternary `? :` operator
-// from languages like C.
-fn abs(i: i32) -> i32 { if i >= 0 { i } else { -i } }
-
-// And the same applies to case distinction with `match`: Every `arm` of the match
-// gives the expression that is returned in the respective case.
-fn number_or_default(n: NumberOrNothing, default: i32) -> i32 {
- match n {
- Nothing => default,
- Number(n) => n,
+// Now that we reduced the problem to computing the minimum of two integers, let's do that.
+fn min_i32(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
+ if a < b {
+ return a; /*@*/
+ } else {
+ return b; /*@*/
}
}
-// With this fresh knowledge, let us now refactor `vec_min`.
-fn vec_min(v: Vec<i32>) -> NumberOrNothing {
- let mut min = Nothing;
- for e in v {
- // First of all, notice that all we do here is compute a new value for `min`, and that it
- // will always end up being `Number` rather than `Nothing`. In Rust, the structure of the code
- // can express this uniformity as follows:
- min = Number(match min {
- Nothing => e,
- Number(n) => std::cmp::min(n, e)
- });
- }
- // The `return` keyword exists in Rust, but it is rarely used. Instead, we typically
- // make use of the fact that the entire function body is an expression, so we can just
- // write down the desired return value.
- min
-}
+// Phew. We wrote our first Rust function! But all this `NumberOrNothing::` is getting kind of
+// ugly. Can't we do that nicer?
-// Now that's already much shorter! Make sure you can go over the code above and actually understand
-// every step of what's going on.
+// Indeed, we can: The following line tells Rust to take
+// the constructors of `NumberOrNothing` into the local namespace.
+// Try moving that above the function, and removing all the occurrences `NumberOrNothing::`.
+use self::NumberOrNothing::{Number,Nothing};
// To call this function, we now just need a list. Of course, ultimately we want to ask the user for
-// a list of numbers, but for now, let's just hard-code something:
+// a list of numbers, but for now, let's just hard-code something.
+//@ `vec!` is a *macro* (as you can tell from the `!`) that constructs a constant `Vec<_>` with the given
+//@ elements.
fn read_vec() -> Vec<i32> {
- vec![18,5,7,1,9,27]
- // `vec!` is a *macro* (as you can tell from the `!`) that constructs a constant `Vec` with the given
- // elements.
+ vec![18,5,7,1,9,27] /*@*/
}
-// Finally, let's call our functions and run the code!
-// But, wait, we would like to actually see something, so we need to print the result.
-// Of course Rust can print numbers, but after calling `vec_min`, we have a `NumberOrNothing`.
-// So let's write a small helper function that prints such values.
+// Of course, we would also like to actually see the result of the computation, so we need to print the result.
+//@ Of course Rust can print numbers, but after calling `vec_min`, we have a `NumberOrNothing`.
+//@ So let's write a small helper function that prints such values.
+//@ `println!` is again a macro, where the first argument is a *format string*. For
+//@ now, you just need to know that `{}` is the placeholder for a value, and that Rust
+//@ will check at compile-time that you supplied the right number of arguments.
fn print_number_or_nothing(n: NumberOrNothing) {
- match n {
- Nothing => println!("The number is: <nothing>"),
- Number(n) => println!("The number is: {}", n),
- };
+ match n { /*@*/
+ Nothing => println!("The number is: <nothing>"), /*@*/
+ Number(n) => println!("The number is: {}", n), /*@*/
+ }; /*@*/
}
// Putting it all together:
-
-pub fn part_main() {
+pub fn main() {
let vec = read_vec();
let min = vec_min(vec);
print_number_or_nothing(min);
}
-// Now try `cargo run` on the console to run above code.
+//@ You can now use `cargo build` to compile your *crate*. That's Rust's name for a *compilation unit*, which in
+//@ the case of Rust means an application or a library. <br/>
+// Finally, try `cargo run` on the console to run it.
-// Yay, it said "1"! That's actually the right answer. Okay, we could have
-// computed that ourselves, but that's besides the point. More importantly:
-// You completed the first part of the course.
+//@ Yay, it said "1"! That's actually the right answer. Okay, we could have
+//@ computed that ourselves, but that's besides the point. More importantly:
+//@ You completed the first part of the course.
-// [index](main.html) | previous | [next](part01.html)
+//@ [index](main.html) | previous | [next](part01.html)
projects / rust-101.git / blobdiff