• BB_C@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    fn foo(&big, &chungus)

    is out,

    async fn foo(&BIG_GLOBAL_STATIC_REF_OR_SIMILAR_HORROR, sendable_chungus.clone())

    is in.

    Or maybe you know

    fn foo(&big, &chungus)

    is out

    async fn foo(big, chungus) -> (big, chungus)

    is in

    Or

    async fn foo(big, chungus) {
      // ...
      tx.send((big, chungus)).await?;
      // ...
    }
    

    is in

    Moving (movable/sendable) data is not limited by number or direction, you know. And that second one even makes use of them great Hoare channels! And gives us control on how long we hold on to data before sending it back (modified or not). But I digress. Let’s go back to the important talking point that Hoare was right!

    • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the point of the “BIG_GLOBAL_STATIC…” name is that global statics are bad, not that the syntax is ugly. That said, you’re absolutely correct that combining channels with async code is the way to go.

      • BB_C@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the point of the “BIG_GLOBAL_STATIC…” name is that global statics are bad, not that the syntax is ugly.

        Yes. And my point was that there is an obvious way of sharing data besides passing static-refs, cloning, and using Arcs, which is moving data bidirectionally. That was conveniently, or ignorantly, glossed over by the coping gopher.