On May 19, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote: > 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?
Presumably if the natives are C/C++ hackers, int[10] would be non-alien. But type in the middle or on the right would be more consistent, ceteris paribus. I think [10 int] reads well. Can the constant expression sub-grammar compose this way? /be _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
