On 18/05/2011 6:46 PM, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
In fact, in that case all you'd need to change, as far as I can tell, is the vector type constructor syntax to be "[T]" instead of T[] which would avoid any ambiguous associativity issues (that last example would then be "mutable @ [ @ mutable int ]").
Yeah. I'm sympathetic to this and have discussed exactly this point a fair bit already; the problem is that we'd like to reserve room in the syntax for a type of vecs that have a specific interior allocation reserved for them rather than pointing to the heap. I.e. int[10] or such.
This could still be done by [int](10) or [10]int or even [10 int] it's just a matter of ... alienness of convention?
-Graydon _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
