undefined | Better HN

0 pointsK0nserv1y ago0 comments

That's orthogonal. If the type was `&[u8]` instead of `Path` the type signature would be:

    pub fn read<P: AsRef<[u8]>>(path: P) -> Result<Vec<u8>>

The reasons for it to be generic and us `AsRef` remain. The reason for Path over &[u8] is, AFAIK, because not all byte slices are valid paths on all OSs, but also because a dedicated type lets the standard library add methods such as `Path::join`

0 comments

jiwangcdi1y ago

So abstraction is still a point, but Rust cares about memory layout as well.

K0nservOP1y ago

Sort of, this API enables static dispatch, but it could also have been written as

   pub fn read<P: AsRef<Path>>(path: &dyn P) -> Result<Vec<u8>>

In which case the size of `path` is always the same(two words[0]) and the same machine code could be used regardless of how the function is called. Rust still cares about the memory layout but because `&dyn AsRef<Path>` has the same layout for all implementations of `AsRef<Path>` there's no need for monomorphization[1].

0: https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.80.1/reference/types/trait-objec...

1: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/backend/monomorph.html...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse