[kketch]

Technically no. Producing side effects from a setter is not unexpected, even if it often the best idea to have a setter have a lot of unexpected side effects. However producing side effects from getters is definitely unexpected and should not be done. Interestingly it's one of the areas where rust is really useful, it forces you express your intent in terms of mutability and is able to enforce these expectations we have.

[galangalalgol]

Overloading assignment operators to maintain an invariant is one thing, but this particular case of it running off and effectively doing ionis weird to me coming from an embedded c++ background. I don't like operator overloading and think it should be avoided, just to make my bias obvious. I don't code c++ anymore either, rust and no looking back for a few years now.

[jibal]

But it doesn't run off and do I/O ... that's the bug! The OP assumed that setting the variable causes the new page to be loaded but it doesn't--it just says what page should be loaded. The page doesn't get loaded until the app goes idle. So this whole discussion about setters and side effects is completely off kilter.

[eru]

> Interestingly it's one of the areas where rust is really useful, it forces you express your intent in terms of mutability and is able to enforce these expectations we have.

Though Rust only cares about mutability, it doesn't track whether you are going to launch the nukes or format the hard disk.

[kketch]

True. But I would not expect any programming language to do that.

Rust provides safeguards and helps you to enforce mutability and ownership at the language level, but how you leverage those safeguards is still up to you.

If you really want it you can still get Rust to mutate stuff when you call a non mutable function after all. Like you could kill someone with a paper straw