miniblog.

← Back to all posts
Jan 22, 2022 at 23:46
I keep getting surprised by .lines() semantics in Rust. "" -> empty "foo" -> one line "foo\n" -> one line "foo\nbar" -> two lines I end up using .split('\n') everywhere instead, but .lines() is so convenient it feels like a footgun.

Related Posts

Jun 9, 2026 at 16:03
31
When talking about a match or a switch statement, I've typically seen people talk about individual 'cases' or 'arms'. TIL Zig uses 'prongs' instead!
Documentation - The Zig Programming Language
Jun 5, 2026 at 08:53
31
Today I learnt about clippy::clone_on_ref_ptr, which complains about t.clone() on a Rc<Thing>. You write Rc::clone(t) instead, so it's obvious it's a cheap clone. It's a nice approach, because it makes the expensive clones more obvious.
Clippy Lints
A collection of lints to catch common mistakes and improve your Rust code.
May 27, 2026 at 21:28
25
I'm writing a Path type in my programming language but not sure what methods belong on a Path. Should I have some_path.read_string() or fs::read_string(some_path) instead? I love .method() for IDE completion, but I don't want Path to be cluttered. I'm also trying to avoid UFCS.