slotmap VS cxx

It looks like .get_disjoint_mut() from slotmap failed under stacked borrows, but seems to pass under tree borrows

I think slotmap is meant to solve this exact issue. Basically when you insert into a collection you get an Id:Version tuple as key. When you reuse a slot, next time the key will be Id:Version+1 and when you try to access the removed value by using Id:Version, it will return None. You can think about it as delayed invalidation.

Dunno about existing implementations, but it looks like it's a feature they'd accept: https://github.com/orlp/slotmap/issues/73

It's actually quite easy.

You can use either slot map or slab to side step rust borrow checker. Example https://github.com/orlp/slotmap/blob/master/examples/rand_meld_heap.rs

I don't know, only have some theories.

1. The name isn't particularly catchy or descriptive. It is the correct name for the data structure, but not too many people know the data structure.

2. People don't even know what they're missing. It's not a very Google-able problem to begin with. Slotmap provides an interesting solution to (circular) ownership and safe allocator / weak pointer design problems, but people don't recognize that they're having them or that slotmap could help.

As an example of this, the doubly linked list example (https://github.com/orlp/slotmap/blob/master/examples/doubly_...) can safely remove nodes from the linked list given their handle, in O(1), even from the middle, completely safely and correctly, even in the presence of double deletions or ABA memory re-use. You can't replicate this with just pointers, without introducing heavy refcounting solutions.

Nope, it's perfectly safe: https://github.com/orlp/slotmap/blob/master/examples/doubly_linked_list.rs.

I think keeping the relationship between child and parent elements in the node graph might be better accommodating better via a psuedo-ECS system, see https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/cnjhup/idiomatic_way_to_reference_parent_struct/. The https://github.com/orlp/slotmap crate looks promising. I think I'm just going to ditch the global shared HashMap in favor of something that can better accommodate child/parent relations.

I think the slotmap crate is similar to what you're trying to write: https://github.com/orlp/slotmap

There are cxx and autocxx, what else do you propose to do?

I would like to see a comparison of how this compares to Rust. In terms of interoperability it has Cxx (https://cxx.rs) to offer safe bindings to C++ but also has great support for Android, Linux and many other systems. You don't even need to hack together Windows bindings (as explained in the blog post) because Microsoft offers official bindings (https://crates.io/crates/windows). I'm not sure if I'd call it a superpower if any potential interoperability has to be written to be used (compared to it already being available). Or rather, in comparison to what is interoperability a Swift superpower? Certainly not C++ or C which can be used in a far wider set of targets.

We selected Qt as a cross-platform solution. The C++/Rust interface is the clunkiest and ugliest part of the application, and rather complex because some state is shared between several windows in the GUI and several threads in the backend, and any component might modify that state at any time, and updates have to be transmitted to the other components without introducing inconsistencies. Using cxx [1] helped a little, though.

The project began in 2020, and I'm not sure what I'd choose as a GUI framework today – definitely not Qt Widgets, though.

[1] https://cxx.rs/

If the build process for the C library isn't too involved I recommend using cxx bridge (https://cxx.rs/) and letting cargo handle the build and linking. cxx basically allows you to describe the bidirectional interface (although it sounds like you only need 1 direction, which is fine too) in Rust code and it provides a "good enough" API for compiling C code inside the build.rs file.

The tooling for the first kind -- calling Rust from another language -- is a bit less developed, and tends to rely on code generation that doesn't necessarily produce a natural C API. cbindgen, uniffi, cxx, and Diplomat all take this course.

I would like to utilize OMPL's functionality in Rust code, so I want to call into OMPL C++ code somehow in Rust. I've seen two (non-mutually-exclusive) options so far: - rust-cpp, which allows you to write C++ code in Rust within the cpp!() macro. - cxx, which allows you to define both sides of the FFI boundary manually (as opposed to bindgen's automatic generation).

I'm not sure how to do this in cxx; issues like https://github.com/dtolnay/cxx/issues/447 suggest that this isn't settled yet?

I use non-vendored dependencies for the Buck build in https://github.com/dtolnay/cxx.

There's also the cpp and cxx crates for doing C++/Rust interop, but they probably aren't appropriate to use in all cases. The C ABI is definitely the safest way to go unless you're really trying to marry Rust and C++ code bases, not just writing library bindings.

There's also cxx (can't vouch for it personally but it claims to make things a lot easier) https://github.com/dtolnay/cxx