I’m using the web UI, so I’m assuming whatever broad-spectrum Markdown rendering library it uses has smart quote rendering turned on.

Edit: and just to be snarky: I didn’t type “…” I typed “…”. ;)

*chuckle* I think Lemmy typed those for you, because I typed three periods and got a Unicode ellipsis, and both of those are also unicode ellipses.

It still returns relative paths if the input was relative

False

and it doesn’t resolve “…”

I’ll assume you meant .., since ... is an ordinary filename. (Aside from the “who remembers …?” feature introduced in Windows 95’s COMMAND.COM where cd ... was shorthand for doing cd .. twice and you could omit the space after cd if your target was all dots.)

The reason it doesn’t do that is that, when symlinks get involved, /foo/bar/.. does not necessarily resolve to /foo and making that assumption could introduce a lurking security vulnerability in programs which use it.

Ahh, yeah. In the beginning, Rust was built around the idea that individual files and invoking rustc are internal details, only relevant for integration into some other build system like Bazel, and that “normal” Rust projects need to be inside a Cargo project structure.

There is in-development work to have official support for something along the lines of rust-script, but it’s still just that… in development. If you want to keep an eye on it, here is the tracking issue.

That’s not how it’s supposed to be.

but for example Vec::new() doesn’t highlight anything at all.

If I do Vec::new(foo, bar), I get expected 0 arguments, found 2 (rust-analyzer E0107).

but things like passing too many arguments into the println macro doesn’t throw an error.

I don’t get that either, but I’m still running with the Vim configuration I setup on my previous PC from 2011, where I turned off checks that require calling cargo check or cargo clippy in the background. From what I remember, a properly functioning default rust-analyzer config should pick up and display anything cargo check will catch and you can switch it to cargo clippy for even stricter results.

Or how shown in this example, it did not autocomplete the clone method, while also just accepting .clo; at the end of a String (it also didn’t autocomplete “String”).

I get clone(), clone_into(), and clone_from() as proposed completions for .clo on my as-you-type completions for foo where let foo = String::new(); and it proposed a whole bunch of things, with String at the top when I typed Stri. (eg. the stringify! macro, OsString, mixed in with various results from other crates in the project like serde)

Fair. That would have been more constructive… I think I didn’t do that because it still would have felt like encouraging off-topicness.

Signal to noise ratio.

Aside from possibly making them feel better, it doesn’t benefit anyone for them to drop into a topic about thing X and say nothing but “I use thing Y. I don’t like thing X.” and it wastes other people’s time either scrolling past it or clearing out their RSS reader, depending on how they follow things.

…and I could just as easily disparage those frameworks and give concrete reasons, but I don’t. If you don’t have something constructive to say, please be courteous and say nothing.

Depending on your preferences, there’s also Nom if you prefer parser combinators, or lalrpop or grmtools if you prefer LR(1) parsing.

Since reading Which Parsing Approach by Laurence Tratt (author of grmtools), my plan for my own parsing projects has been to use an LR(1) parser generator for the stronger compile-time guarantees.

Lemmy hangs whenever I try to post my response (I suspect it doesn’t like the length), so here’s a link to it on Github Gist:

https://gist.github.com/ssokolow/16c9311573eabc7343ff7ff2cc3513b3

It begins as follows and I’ve tried to hyperlink my sources as often as possible:

I’ll try to fill in some of the knowledge gaps and respond to some of your answers from a more user-centric perspective.

I know what they mean. It may not be enormous, functionality-wise, but just the Iterator trait alone feels enormous when you’re trying to figure out which method does what you want.

I think it’s indicative of a need for more work put into making the UI teach people how to search by function signature.

There was a post on Reddit from 2019 that I loved to link to which was about how the poster rewrote a NodeJS service into Rust.

The original was taken down in response to Reddit enshittifying, but it’s still up on the wayback machine and the graphs were hosted on Imgur, where they’re still up without needing the Wayback machine:

• https://i.imgur.com/cSdqYOV.png
• https://i.imgur.com/joO18MD.png

He recently did one about how he and his team set up a fake bitcoin site that would direct scammers to a fake support hotline when they try to withdraw the fake bitcoin, where they’d get stuck running in circles in a voice mail menu maze chasing the illusory bitcoin payout.

I Trapped 200 Scammers in an Impossible Maze

As one commenter put it, “I love how Kit has evolved over the years to find out the best way of making scammers go crazy is to treat them basically the same way Comcast treats their customers.”

Moxie Marlinspike’s My first impressions of web3 is also a very relevant thing to share.

As a sampler of the points made, web3 is already re-centralizing around gatekeepers because the average person doesn’t want to run their own server (or, in the blockchain case, host their own full copy of the blockchain) and, if the supermajority of users can’t see you because the gatekeepers block you, then it doesn’t really matter that you’re technically still up.

The takeaway on that particular point is that pushing for more and easier data portability is probably the best route in the face of how real-world users behave. (eg. anything stored in a git repository, including GitHub project wiki contents, is a great example of that. You’ve got your data locally with a simple git clone and you can upload it to a competing service with a simple git push.)