You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
let a = Arc::new([1,2,3]);
thread::spawn({let a = a.clone();move || {dbg!(a);}});dbg!(a);
I feel this is a bit confusing, especially to new users. At first glance this may be read as the arc clone happening on the second thread because it looks like you are passing the entire scope to the thread::spawn() function, when really the let a = a.clone(); line is still on the main thread.
In my opinion a better way of writing the same thing would be:
let a = Arc::new([1,2,3]);{let a = a.clone();
thread::spawn(move || {dbg!(a);})};dbg!(a);
This accomplishes the same thing but I think is less misleading and easier to understand at a glance, as well as making it more clear that the clone happens on the main thread.
Also sorry, not sure if this belongs under Technically Discussion, but putting it under error also didn't seem right as I thought maybe it was like this for a reason, very open to it staying as is if anyone sees it another way. Thanks for your hard work!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The content that the question is about
https://marabos.nl/atomics/basics.html#naming-clones
The question
This section contains the following code example:
I feel this is a bit confusing, especially to new users. At first glance this may be read as the arc clone happening on the second thread because it looks like you are passing the entire scope to the
thread::spawn()
function, when really thelet a = a.clone();
line is still on the main thread.In my opinion a better way of writing the same thing would be:
This accomplishes the same thing but I think is less misleading and easier to understand at a glance, as well as making it more clear that the clone happens on the main thread.
Also sorry, not sure if this belongs under Technically Discussion, but putting it under error also didn't seem right as I thought maybe it was like this for a reason, very open to it staying as is if anyone sees it another way. Thanks for your hard work!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: