rewrite | Automated mass refactoring of source code

You can call next() with a generator or iterator as an argument to withdraw exactly one element from it. Saving the generator to a variable beforehand allows you to do this multiple times.

By making MAIN a multi sub:

This failure is likely due to an issue between java 17 and older lombok versions. Building with java 17.0.1, lombok 1.18.20 and maven 3.8.1 caused a vague "Compilation failure" for me as well. I upgraded to maven 3.8.3 which also failed but provided this detail on the failure:

java.lang.NullPointerException: Cannot read field "bindingsWhenTrue" because "currentBindings" is null

Searching for this failure message I found this issue on stackoverflow leading me to a bug in lombok. I upgraded to lombok 1.18.22 and that fixed the compilation failure for a successful build.

Rust uses the type for matching, so it doesn't know the bounds as per your logic. But you do.

For being explicit you can use unreachable!:

Indicates unreachable code.

This is useful any time that the compiler can’t determine that some code is unreachable. For example:

Match arms with guard conditions. Loops that dynamically terminate. Iterators that dynamically terminate. If the determination that the code is unreachable proves incorrect, the program immediately terminates with a panic!.

After I have read the documentation in more detail here and here,

I was able to rewrite my problematic code section as follows:

The optimization is called "call-pattern specialization" (a.k.a. SpecConstr) this specializes functions according to which arguments they are applied to. The optimization is described in the paper "Call-pattern specialisation for Haskell programs" by Simon Peyton Jones. The current implementation in GHC is different from what is described in that paper in two highly relevant ways:

1. SpecConstr can apply to any call in the same module, not just recursive calls inside a single definition.
2. SpecConstr can apply to functions as arguments, not just constructors. However, it doesn't work for lambdas, unless they have been floated out by full laziness.

Here is the relevant part of the core that is produced without this optimization, using -fno-spec-constr, and with the -dsuppress-all -dsuppress-uniques -dno-typeable-binds flags:

At first blush, one would hope this would be enough:

Here is the C++20 solution I came up with:

The issue is that you are trying to do a string.Contains within an Any expression which EF will choke on trying to compose down to SQL. Cleptus is on the nose, to build a predicate for the Where clause OR-ing the term comparisons. Otherwise your code should work without the contains check, but rather an equality check:

Without Contains: (equality check rather than LIKE %name%)