a better solution would be to add a method called something like ulock that does a combined lock and unwrap.

That’s exactly what’s done above using an extension trait! You can mutex_val.ulock() with it!

Now that I think about it, I don’t like how unwrap can signal either “I know this can’t fail”, “the possible error states are too rare to care about” or “I can’t be bothered with real error handing right now”.

That’s why you’re told (clippy does that i think) to use expect instead, so you can signal “whatever string” you want to signal precisely.

if you’re really that bothered…

use std::sync::{Mutex, MutexGuard};

trait ULock<'a> {
    type Guard;
    fn ulock(&'a self) -> Self::Guard;
}

impl<'a, T: 'a> ULock<'a> for Mutex<T> {
    type Guard = MutexGuard<'a, T>;
    fn ulock(&'a self) -> Self::Guard {
      self.lock().unwrap()
    }
}

or use a wrapper struct, if you really really want the method to be called exactly lock.

If lock-ergonomics^ⓒ is as relevant to you as indexing, you’re doing it wrong.

I would rather take indexing returning Results than the other way around.

One can always wrap any code in {||{ //.. }}() and use question marks liberally anyway (I call them stable try blocks 😉).

…and that’s how you drive up metrics.

Never set foot in AU.
I was under the impression that Tasmania doesn’t get that cold.
Also, apparently some would rather describe Perth as Mediterranean-SouthAfrican, rather than Mediterranean-Californian 😉

Gross!

Unprofessional.
This is why no one takes Rust seriously.

but futures only execute when polled.

The most interesting part here is the polling only has to take place on the scope itself. That was actually what I wanted to check, but got distracted because all spawns are awaited in the scope in moro’s README example.

async fn slp() {
    tokio::time::sleep(std::time::Duration::from_millis(1)).await
}

async fn _main() {
    let result_fut = moro::async_scope!(|scope| {
        dbg!("d1");
        scope.spawn(async { 
            dbg!("f1a");
            slp().await;
            slp().await;
            slp().await;
            dbg!("f1b");
        });
        dbg!("d2"); // 11
        scope.spawn(async {
            dbg!("f2a");
            slp().await;
            slp().await;
            dbg!("f2b");
        });
        dbg!("d3"); // 14
        scope.spawn(async {
            dbg!("f3a");
            slp().await;
            dbg!("f3b");
        });
        dbg!("d4");
        async { dbg!("b1"); } // never executes
    });
    slp().await;
    dbg!("o1");
    let _ = result_fut.await;
}

fn main() {
    let rt = tokio::runtime::Builder::new_multi_thread()
        .enable_all()
        .build()
        .unwrap();
    rt.block_on(_main())
}

[src/main.rs:32:5] "o1" = "o1"
[src/main.rs:7:9] "d1" = "d1"
[src/main.rs:15:9] "d2" = "d2"
[src/main.rs:22:9] "d3" = "d3"
[src/main.rs:28:9] "d4" = "d4"
[src/main.rs:9:13] "f1a" = "f1a"
[src/main.rs:17:13] "f2a" = "f2a"
[src/main.rs:24:13] "f3a" = "f3a"
[src/main.rs:26:13] "f3b" = "f3b"
[src/main.rs:20:13] "f2b" = "f2b"
[src/main.rs:13:13] "f1b" = "f1b"

The non-awaited jobs are run concurrently as the moro docs say. But what if we immediately await f2?

[src/main.rs:32:5] "o1" = "o1"
[src/main.rs:7:9] "d1" = "d1"
[src/main.rs:15:9] "d2" = "d2"
[src/main.rs:9:13] "f1a" = "f1a"
[src/main.rs:17:13] "f2a" = "f2a"
[src/main.rs:20:13] "f2b" = "f2b"
[src/main.rs:22:9] "d3" = "d3"
[src/main.rs:28:9] "d4" = "d4"
[src/main.rs:24:13] "f3a" = "f3a"
[src/main.rs:13:13] "f1b" = "f1b"
[src/main.rs:26:13] "f3b" = "f3b"

f1 and f2 are run concurrently, f3 is run after f2 finishes, but doesn’t have to wait for f1 to finish, which is maybe obvious, but… (see below).

So two things here:

1. Re-using the spawn terminology here irks me for some reason. I don’t know what would be better though. Would defer_to_scope() be confusing if the job is awaited in the scope?
2. Even if assumed obvious, a note about execution order when there is a mix of awaited and non-awaited jobs is worth adding to the documentation IMHO.

I skimmed the latter parts of this post since I felt like I read it all before, but I think moro is new to me. I was intrigued to find out how scoped span exactly behaves.

async fn slp() {
    tokio::time::sleep(std::time::Duration::from_millis(1)).await
}

async fn _main() {
    let value = 22;
    let result_fut = moro::async_scope!(|scope| {
        dbg!(); // line 8
        let future1 = scope.spawn(async {
            slp().await;
            dbg!(); // line 11
            let future2 = scope.spawn(async {
                slp().await;
                dbg!(); // line 14
                value // access stack values that outlive scope
            });
            slp().await;
            dbg!(); // line 18

            let v = future2.await * 2;
            v
        });

        slp().await;
        dbg!(); // line 25
        let v = future1.await * 2;
        slp().await;
        dbg!(); // line 28
        v
    });
    slp().await;
    dbg!(); // line 32
    let result = result_fut.await;
    eprintln!("{result}"); // prints 88
}

fn main() {
    // same output with `new_current_thread()` of course
    let rt = tokio::runtime::Builder::new_multi_thread()
        .enable_all()
        .build()
        .unwrap();
    rt.block_on(_main())
}

This prints:

[src/main.rs:32:5]
[src/main.rs:8:9]
[src/main.rs:25:9]
[src/main.rs:11:13]
[src/main.rs:18:13]
[src/main.rs:14:17]
[src/main.rs:28:9]
88

So scoped spawn doesn’t really spawn tasks as one might mistakenly think!

It implies that the value of their policy work is significantly below…

It’s always safe to assume that value to be negative unless proven otherwise actually.

The LARPing levels in moronix comments are higher than usual, but the comedic value is still not lost.

Monthly Reminder: High or low, all Linux usage stats are fake.

I think your second link isn’t what you intended?

You scared me for a moment there. I don’t know why you thought that.

Needless to say, even with the first example, metavar expressions are not strictly needed here, as using a second pattern and recursing expansions would work.

But I wanted to showcase the power of ${ignore}, as it can be cleaner and/or more powerful in some cases where extra patterns and recursing expansions can get messy and hard to track.

Is this crazy?

A general repeat macro that works on stable Rust would work too of course.

First of all, unsafe famously doesn’t disable the borrow checker, which is something any Rustacean would know, so your intro is a bit weird in that regard.

And if you neither like the borrow checker, nor like unsafe rust as is, then why are you forcing yourself to use Rust at all. If you’re bored with C++, there are other of languages out there, a couple of which are even primarily developed by game developers, for game developers.

The fact that you found a pattern that can be alternatively titled “A Generic Method For Introducing Heisenbugs In Rust”, and you are somehow excited about it, indicates that you probably should stop this endeavor.

Generally speaking, I think the Rust community would benefit from making an announcement a long the lines of “If you’re a game developer, then we strongly advise you to become a Rustacean outside the field of game development first, before considering doing game development in Rust”.

for a build of your crate only: single core perf.

Until the parallel compiler feature (-Z threads=<n>) stabilizes and becomes more complete.

It’s also always worth mentioning that the choice of linker is important. Using mold or lld can significantly speed things up in some use-cases.

Beyond that, codegen-units and lto profile options are also important.

And finally, for development purposes, the code generator is important, as cranelift provides much faster compile times, but resulting binaries are not as optimized as LLVM-generated ones.

Your answer wanders a bit unnecessarily IMHO.

• no-std Rust has no run-time dependencies of its own.
• std Rust runtime-requirements are basically libc, a heap allocator, and a threading library. Many implementations on many OSes are already supported, including musl on Linux. And what’s not supported can theoretically be so in the future.
• Code generation at build-time is dependent on LLVM, with cranelift and (soon) GCC available as not fully mature alternatives.
• 3rd party code/crates may impose additional requirements.

Ask yourself:

• Where do these stats come from?
• What do they actually measure?
• How can the total number of all Desktop Linux users or devices be known to anyone?

​
The fact of the matter is, none of these stats actually measure the number of users. Most of them are just totally flawed guestimates based on what is often limited web analytics data collected by them.

In fact, not even the developers of a single distribution can guess the number of people/devices using/running that specific distribution. A distribution like Debian for example has mirrors, and mirrors to some mirrors, and maybe even mirrors to some mirrors to some mirrors. So if Debian developers can’t possibly know the number of Debian users, do you think OP’s site knows the total number of Desktop Linux users?

And let’s not get into the fact that the limited data they collect itself is not even reliable. View desktop site on your Android phone’s browser. Congratulations! Now you’re a desktop Linux user. No special user-agent spoofing add-on needed. You’re even running X11. Good choice not following the Wayland fad too soon.

High or low, all Linux usage stats are fake.

Keep (Neo)Vim out of this.