X-Git-Url: https://git.ralfj.de/rust-101.git/blobdiff_plain/a115b75de6e7e85f8799a77e2998ab1a24743e06..a7fde6ca45fecd14ac7764f47d74a76bb8853352:/src/part00.rs diff --git a/src/part00.rs b/src/part00.rs index ed76e81..6469907 100644 --- a/src/part00.rs +++ b/src/part00.rs @@ -35,8 +35,7 @@ fn vec_min(vec: Vec) -> NumberOrNothing { //@ 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: @@ -83,10 +82,9 @@ fn read_vec() -> Vec { 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 @@ -105,8 +103,9 @@ pub fn main() { print_number_or_nothing(min); } -// You can now use `cargo build` to compile your code. If all goes well, try `cargo run` on the -// console to run it. +//@ 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.
+// 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: