Or use an operator. In felix, we used the exponential style syntax of "int^5". This came naturally from the way we expressed tuple types as "int * float * str".
I'm not sure it fits rust's style though. On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Noel Grandin <[email protected]> wrote: > Or you could repurpose a keyword > > inline [ int ] > > to indicate interior allocation. > > > Brendan Eich wrote: >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
