#type #safety #utility

doublysure

Using types to make sure that you're sure, sure, and doubly sure

1 unstable release

0.1.0 Jul 20, 2020

#2632 in Rust patterns

21 downloads per month

MIT license

9KB
109 lines

DoublySure

Using types to make sure that you're sure, sure, and doubly sure

Development Status: Alpha

Description

Users get prompted to make sure they want to perform a destructive action, why shouldn't developers? Rust is full of considerations of safety and security, protecting the code from itself. But what about protecting the code from us, the developers who wrote it? Destructive and costly actions are often just a .delete() away.

DoublySure wants to help prevent at least some of that by providing a single type AreYouSure, and a macro make_sure to convert data and functions to it. make_sure will also defer function calls, so that .delete() won't get called immediately.

When you encounter an you can either call .yes_i_am_sure() which will return the inner value or run the deferred function call, or you can say .no_i_am_not_sure() which will discard the data and not call deferred functions.

Use Case

Any instance in which a dangerous operation could be performed, and there is little resistance to performing it. DoublySure exists to make programmers stop and think "Is this what I mean to do?", as well as provide programmatic second chances to say no.

Also please do not abuse the function call deferment mechanism this crate provides. That will only end in sadness for you and me both.

Alternatives

  • Rust's built in Result and Option types.
  • Futures for deferment

ToDo

  • Look into using Futures as a way of deferring execution.

No runtime deps