I can’t help but suspect it doesn’t offer much and you may as well just use match statements for whenever you want pattern matching, however many times it might be slightly more verbose than what you could do with if let.
I feel like I’d easily miss that pattern matching was happening with if let but will always know with match what’s happening and have an impression of what’s happening just from the structure of the code.


I’m not a massive fan of it – some Rust newbies on our team do get confused by it – but it can improve readability in places and it does fit into the greater scheme of Rust in that you can also write things like this:
struct Something(DifferentThing); let something = Something(DifferentThing::new()); let Something(different_thing) = something;So, any time you see a
let, it’s actually secretly pattern matching. The variable name you provide is just a wildcard pattern.EDIT: I copied this into a separate post: https://lemmy.ml/post/14593192
yea, great point … I hadn’t considered the consistency with destructuring (which seems silly in hindsight).
For those who aren’t aware, here’s the first section in The Book on patterns in
letstatements.I think, if this is confusing, there are two points of clarification:
letstatements involve patterns. They’re alllet PATTERN = EXPRESSION. For ordinary variable binding, we’re just providing a basic pattern that is essentially like a wildcard in that it will match the totality of any expression and so be bound to the full/final value of the expression.let (x, y, _) = (1, 2, 3);or Ephera’s example abovelet Something(different_thing) = something;which extracts the single field of thestructsomething into the variabledifferent_thing` (handy!).letstatements must useirrefutablepatterns. That is, patterns that cannot fail to match the expression. For example, against a tuple,(x, y, _)will always match. Another way of putting it, is thatirrefutablepatterns are about destructuring not testing or conditional logic.if letstatements on the other hand can take bothirrefutablepatterns andrefutable, but are really intended to be used withrefutablepatterns as they’re intended for conditional logic where the pattern must be able to fail to match the expression/value.refutabilityExcellent research! 🙂