On 11/24/10 7:32 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
I would like #4 best, but to do it right you'd have to infer the expected type of the branched completion from its context, and I think you don't yet do any top-down typechecking (except a bit in pattern-alt which may not help with this case). After that, #3, even though I'll definitely get confused when I terminate my blocks with a semicolon and they stop working as values.
An alternate way of thinking about proposal #3 is that, as a rule of thumb, ";" always means "ignore the result of the previous statement". Formulating it this way might ease the cognitive load on users.
Patrick _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
