wordy 1.4.0 #736
wordy 1.4.0 #736
Conversation
Error object; since Rust was already using `Option` we need take no more action. exercism/problem-specifications#1334
petertseng
added
sync/readme
| result = evaluate(result, opr, operand(&t.remove(0))); | ||
| Some(result) | ||
| }).collect::<Vec<_>>(); | ||
| if words.len() < 3 { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there is no test case that exercises this condition. I am considering whether to submit What is? as wordy 1.5.0
| }; | ||
| let mut words = words.split_at(3).1; | ||
| while !words.is_empty() { | ||
| let tmp = apply_op(result, words)?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would have liked to write (result, words) = apply_op(result, words)?; or something, but that is not valid. A shame.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that was pointed out in #665 (comment) . I wonder if I should also consider using that function that takes &mut. Note though that there still remains the possibility that the function will cause an early return None (currently done by the ?), so there's a bit more to it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, destructuring assignment would be a really nice usability improvement for the language.
exercises/wordy/example.rs
Outdated
| while t.len() > 1 { | ||
| result = evaluate(result, opr, operand(&t.remove(0))); | ||
| opr = operator(&t.remove(0)); | ||
| if !c.ends_with('?') { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no test case tests this line of code
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see no reason to keep it, then. This implements a parser stricter than the tests and readme require.
| if !c.ends_with('?') { | ||
| return None; | ||
| } | ||
| let words = c.trim_end_matches('?').split_whitespace().map(|word| { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
note that if there were a test case along the lines of What is 1 + 2??? then that might raise questions as to whether that case is acceptable. This code would accept it.
| Some(result) | ||
| }).collect::<Vec<_>>(); | ||
| if words.len() < 3 { | ||
| return None; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wish I didn't have to do this separately, but words[0..3] will panic if words.len() < 3. Maybe something with iter().take(3), but then I hae to collect as well and it doesn't seem worth it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think words[..3] might not panic, being an unbounded range. Might be worth looking into, at least.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting. Looks like it still does though. thread 'reject_empty' panicked at 'index 3 out of range for slice of length 0', libcore/slice/mod.rs:1932:5
Existing example was too lax with its error detection and I did not find a sensible way to bolt it on incrementally. I was unfortunately required to rewrite from scratch. The new example does have the property of being fewer lines than the previous one, if that helps...? Closes #705
I unfortunately considered the existing example solution not quite up to the task of doing this, so I was forced to write a new implementation from scratch. exercism/problem-specifications#1383
No description provided.