Recent searches
Search options
I had many concerns about things **not** provided by #rustlang #rust when I started this journey. I tooted about them. You can look back at my history to see. As I have learned, I have seen what Rust has instead of each missing feature. #til about `catch_unwind` and looked deeper into `Result`s. So now I feel better about Rust not having #Python exceptions.
I still don’t see a replacement for Python’s keyword arguments or default values in function calls. Every time I mention this, people reply that I shouldn’t have so many arguments that I need these things. That’s absolutely not why I want them. I want them because they are better than comments at helping the reader understand what is happening without diving down into the function definition.
@YesJustWolf
Named arguments have been a wishlist item for a long time. You can simulate part of this by passing a struct and using the Default system.
This RFC looks to improve that mechanism for structs:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3681-default-field-values.md
@YesJustWolf Rust is still young. A lot of these small pain points are being addressed, but it takes time. For example, having default field values on structs provides a way to have optional/default arguments to functions:
![This is a tracking issue for the RFC "3681" (rust-lang/rfcs#3681). The feature gate for the issue is #![feature(default_field_values)]. Allow struct definitions to provide default values for indivi...](https://media.hachyderm.io/cache/preview_cards/images/027/201/016/original/375f5ca3180d1cf2.png "This is a tracking issue for the RFC \"3681\" (rust-lang/rfcs#3681). The feature gate for the issue is #![feature(default_field_values)]. Allow struct definitions to provide default values for indivi...")