Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust: alloc: add `Vec::dec_len`

Danilo Krummrich
2025-03-17T16:17:01Z

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 10:44:25AM -0400, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 10:42 AM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon Mar 17, 2025 at 1:59 PM CET, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:47:50AM +0000, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 07:34:44AM -0400, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > >> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 6:04 AM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Sun Mar 16, 2025 at 11:32 PM CET, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > >> > > > Add `Vec::dec_len` that reduces the length of the receiver. This method
> > >> > > > is intended to be used from methods that remove elements from `Vec` such
> > >> > > > as `truncate`, `pop`, `remove`, and others. This method is intentionally
> > >> > > > not `pub`.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I think it should be `pub`. Otherwise we're loosing functionality
> > >> > > compared to now. If one decides to give the raw pointer to some C API
> > >> > > that takes ownership of the pointer, then I want them to be able to call
> > >> > > `dec_len` manually.
> > >> >
> > >> > This is premature. It is trivial to make this function pub when the need arises.
> > >>
> > >> Normally I'd agree with Benno, but in this case I think having it
> > >> private is preferable. The function is safe, so it's too easy for
> > >> end-users to confuse it with truncate.
> > >
> > > Thinking more about this ... I think we should have `set_len` and
> > > `inc_len` instead. That way, both methods are unsafe so people will not
> > > accidentally use `set_len` when they meant to use `truncate`.
> >
> > I agree for this on the public API. The way I usually saw `set_len`
> > being used for decrementing was truncation without dropping the old
> > values. And that is going to be `vec.dec_len(vec.len())` with the
> > current design. `vec.set_len(0);` is much clearer in that respect.
> >
> > But for the internals, I'd say that `dec_len` is nicer, so for `pop` one
> > would then use `self.dec_len(1)`.
> >
> > How about we keep `set_len` and make `dec_len` a private, safe helper?
>
> This discussion is _way_ too speculative for my taste. If you'd like
> to do this kind of thing, I'm happy to drop this patch or the series.
> I'm not comfortable adding API whose usage I haven't seen and don't
> understand.

Seems like setting the length of a vector is a hard thing to do. :)

I advocate for a middle ground.

(1) Let's keep dec_len() a private and safe helper, it clearly improves the
internals.

(2) Introduce set_len() as a public API and defer the question on how to support
dec_len() in a public API once the need arises.