Idea: invert() or toggle() function for boolean type?

[scottmcm]

With the former I have to stop and think “ah, this is just flipping the truthiness” and with the latter there’s no thinking.

I find ^= true more readable than .toggle(), personally. I’ve been using that for years in multiple different languages, and don’t see the need to invent a name for it that ends up being longer anyway. (Particularly since there’s no usable chaining that can be involved here.)

[Centril]

That’s fair; I don’t do much bitwise operations so when I see ^= true I still have to wait and think about the true here. I suspect that you do these kind of operations more than me so you are more used to it?

[nikomatsakis]

it seems worthwhile as a standard library addition for the improved readability

I’m not sure about toggling exactly but there are a few similar “convenience methods” I’ve wanted in the past (and some random names):

• reset – equivalent to mem::replace(path, false). I often want to do something like while dirty.reset() {... dirty = true; ...}
• increment – equivalent to fetch_add(1, Ordering::SeqCst) but for ordinary integers, not atomic ones

Similar to the poster here, I’ve never quite felt sufficiently motivated to make a helper library for these.

[nikomatsakis]

For that matter, I would like to have a method not that is equivalent to !x, just because prefix operators are annoying. =)

[Centril]

For that matter, I would like to have a method not that is equivalent to !x , just because prefix operators are annoying. =)

https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/ops/trait.Not.html#tymethod.not

Long live the post-fix operators!

[drXor]

multiple different languages,

What other languages given you ^ as a first-class thing for bools? I’ve never seen this before (beyond using != for bools as a hacky version thereof).

[CAD97]

Almost every language I know (that I picked out on TIO in a quick pass through) offered boolean xor via ^:

• C (stdbool.h): Try it online!
• C#: Try it online!
• C++: Try it online!
• Haskell: omitted because I don’t know it well enough to bang out a TIO example
• Java: Try it online!
• JavaScript (cooerce to number): Try it online!
• Kotlin: no, Try it online!
• Python: Try it online!
• Rust: Try it online!
• Swift: no, Try it online!

[drXor]

My entire life has been a lie.

[mbrubeck]

increment – equivalent to fetch_add(1, Ordering::SeqCst) but for ordinary integers, not atomic ones

x.add_assign(1) (or x += 1) seem like reasonable approximations in this case.

If we had an increment method then people would want a ++ operator to go with it.

[Centril]

Haskell: omitted because I don’t know it well enough to bang out a TIO example

Haskell does the sane (imo – =P) thing of defining (^) :: (Num a, Integral b) => a -> b -> a as the power function. (this further demonstrates that ^= is not so readable… is it raising the LHS by a power or bitwise…?)

[tspiteri]

increment – equivalent to fetch_add(1, Ordering::SeqCst) but for ordinary integers, not atomic ones

x.add_assign(1) (or x += 1 ) seem like reasonable approximations in this case.

But x.fetch_add(1, ...) returns the value before adding 1, like C’s post-increment x++.

[drXor]

…and post-increment is often forbidden in C++ style guides because of its confusing nature and bizarre copying semantics.

I really don’t want ++ in Rust.

[Soni]

what about <-x++ (for post-increment) and x++-> (for pre-increment)? i.e. the arrow indicates when the output happens. and x++ itself is an ().

[drXor]

<-x++;
x += 1;

You win one character, and lose infinity readability. Symbolic inc/dec operators carry a lot of bad historical baggage for epsilon benefit.

[Soni]

let foo: i32 = x++; // error: expected i32, got ()
<-x++; // ok, but unnecessary
x++; // ok
let foo: i32 = <-x++; // ok
let foo: i32 = x++->; // ok

[Yato]

Please create a new thread if you want to talk about increments, this thread is about adding invert/toggle to boolean.

[Riateche]

It’s not immediately clear that .toggle() or .invert() modifies self. From the first glance, I would assume that it just returns the inverse value without modifying the original one.

[nikomatsakis]

x.add_assign(1) (or x += 1 ) seem like reasonable approximations in this case.

Interesting. I confess that had never occurred to me. However, it doesn’t fit the pattern I want, because it returns ().

[nikomatsakis]

Interesting. I confess that had never occurred to me. However, it doesn’t fit the pattern I want, because it returns () .

Ultimately, I usually decide that it’s better off that I can’t write the thing that I want, and just use two or three lines. It just…feels inelegant. But it’s more obvious.

[system]

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.