(I have no strong opinion about types before names. But I do want to point out that...)
> I'm not sure how destructuring with TI affects this, so that could be exactly > what I'm missing. Thanks for any info. Having name:type syntax would allow type annotations in destructuring patterns. The current syntax makes that very hard to do. Same for optional type annotations in inner functions, and destructuring in function arguments. I *think* that this use of the ':' character is compatible with our intention of using it for labels and record fields. (ML, I expect, did think this through further than C did.) _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
