Q: How to convert types in a method chain when .into() is ambiguous?

Use Tap's `.conv:: ()` method for infallible conversions or `.try_conv:: ()` for fallible ones. For instance, `"hello".conv:: ().into_bytes()` works where `"hello".into().into_bytes()` would not compile.

Question 1

How do I add logging to a method chain without breaking it in Rust?

Accepted Answer

Use Tap's `.tap()` method to insert logging directly into the chain. For example, `reqwest::get(url)?.tap(|resp| debug!("Status: {}", resp.status())).text()` keeps the flow intact, as shown in the README's tapping example.

Question 2

Is tap crate zero-cost in release builds?

Accepted Answer

Yes, Tap's `.tap_x_dbg` methods are completely stripped in release builds, ensuring no performance overhead from debugging taps. This makes it safe for production code, as noted in the conditional debugging feature.

Question 3

Tap vs using intermediate let bindings: which is better for readability?

Accepted Answer

Tap reduces boilerplate by avoiding multiple let bindings, making chains more concise. However, some developers prefer explicit bindings for clearer mutability tracking. The choice depends on team style and expression complexity.

Question 4

How to convert types in a method chain when .into() is ambiguous?

Accepted Answer

Use Tap's `.conv::()` method for infallible conversions or `.try_conv::()` for fallible ones. For instance, `"hello".conv::().into_bytes()` works where `"hello".into().into_bytes()` would not compile.

Question 5

Can tap handle Option and Result types without match statements?

Accepted Answer

Yes, Tap provides `TapOptional` and `TapFallible` traits with methods like `.tap_some()` or `.tap_ok()` that only execute on specific variants, avoiding manual matching, as described in the optional and fallible taps section.

Question 6

Does tap work with async Rust code or futures?

Accepted Answer

The README does not mention async support; Tap methods are synchronous. For async pipelines, you might need to adapt with combinators or consider other crates designed for async chaining, which could limit Tap's utility in such contexts.

Question 7

What are good alternatives to tap in Rust?

Accepted Answer

Alternatives include manual variable bindings for clarity, the `dbg!()` macro for simple debugging, or crates like `itertools` for iterator chaining. Tap is unique for its suffix-position approach, but it's not the only option for pipeline management.

tap

What is tap?

Overview

Use Cases

Best For

Related Projects

Found a gem we're missing?

Not Ideal For

Pros & Cons

Pros

Cons

Frequently Asked Questions