• 0 Posts
  • 63 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • The problem of enums in other languages is that they do not make for a distinct type. They are just integers in a name. Or at least that is the case for C and Java enums. Python and JavaScript do not even have enums, which is even worse.

    Strongly typed enums is hardly unique to Rust.

    C++ has had them for a long time, for example: Using a plain integer type where an enum is expected has been prohibited since at least C++98. You can still use an enum in the place of an int, unless you use scoped enums (C++11 or later), which also require an explicit cast to convert from enum to the underlying type.

    And Python has had some form of enum since since 3.4: https://docs.python.org/3/library/enum.html. It’s not a language level feature, but that probably wouldn’t make much of a difference, and it’s as type safe as anything else in the language. But you will get a error when using type-hints, if you pass the wrong type to a function expecting an enum:

    from enum import Enum
    
    class MyEnum(Enum):
        A = 1
        B = 2
    
    def foo(_: MyEnum): ...
    
    foo(1)  # error: Argument 1 to "foo" has incompatible type "int"; expected "MyEnum"  [arg-type]
    


  • This breaks down when there are more than one SOURCE file, since each DESTINATION file depends on all source files. This means that $< will always be the first file in SOURCE. For example, if source contains the files 0001-01-01-some-file-name.md and 0002-02-02-some-file-name.md:

    $ make -n
    mkdir -p destination/0001/01/01/  
    /bin/bash ./myscript.sh source/0001-01-01-some-file-name.md > destination/0001/01/01/some-file-name.md  
    mkdir -p destination/0002/02/02/  
    /bin/bash ./myscript.sh source/0001-01-01-some-file-name.md > destination/0002/02/02/some-file-name.md  
    

    OP is probably better off using a scripting language to automate this kind of thing

    EDIT: Fixed example filenames










  • Here are a few random thoughts based on skimming the source:

    • I’d advice againsts using -Weverything. Many of the warnings it enables are not very useful, and you are going to get a lot of them. And if you enable warnings, then fix them, or you’ll just miss it when your changes cause new warnings.
    • A couple of your check functions may reach the end of the function without returning, if type is not on of the expected values. That is undefined behavior. One simple way to avoid this, is to move the common return out of the ifs.
    • That const std::string type argument in the above functions should be enums, since you are just checking againts one of three fixed values ("name", "ext", and "date").
    • Speaking of which, I can’t think of any situation where you’d want to have an const std::string argument. Either use a const reference (const std::string&) or a string_view (const std::string_view). The latter has the advantage that it doesn’t create a new std::string if you call the function with a C-string and it can be sliced cheaply.
    • You have const std::string &df = df_str; in a couple of places, where df_str is a std::string passed by value. That is of course utterly pointless, and you should simply change df_str to be passed by const reference or as a string view.
    • You define main with an int return type, but use std::exit to exit the function. Those std::exit calls could all be replaced with return, which does the same thing in main.
    • Don’t do work before you need the results. For example, in check_type you perform two checks (saved as starts_with_dot and has_dash), that are not used if name == "name".
    • Nobody who sees a function named check_exists would expect it to create a directory, so it should be renamed to something more descriptive. It is also redundant, since you already check that the directory exists in main.cpp via is_directory, but unlike that check check_exists doesn’t actually verify that the path is a directory.
    • is_founded is Engrish

  • ls can be piped safely if you use --zero:

    ls --zero *.txt | xargs --null -I {} mv {} /home/user/Documents
    

    While the above is a pretty silly example, one reason why you might want to do this is that xargs has a -P/--max-procs argument, that runs N commands in parallel. So you could do something like the following to gzip four files in parallel:

    ls --zero *.txt | xargs --null -n1 -P4 gzip
    

    This is a bit simpler than using the equivalent

    find . -maxdepth 1 -name '*.txt' -print0 | xargs --null -n1 -P4 gzip