On 11-06-06 08:22 AM, Peter Hull wrote:
Also, in Graydon's 'Syntax Changes' thread (18th May or so) I was
wondering whether tuples could be constructed with the same { } syntax
as recs, only omitting the field names. Were there any thoughts on
this idea - is it possible/desirable?
Yeah; I've proposed elsewhere in syntax discussions (on the wiki) that
we remove tuples altogether and merge their use-cases (such as tag
arguments) into structural records. There are a variety of careful bits
to take care of here, but I think it's promising, and we're going to be
overhauling the structural declaration, constructor and pattern-matching
syntaxes to try to get a lot of these issues tidied up. We'll do some
experiments to find a sweet spot.
Either way, I'd like to ask to defer this *particular* decision until
more progress has been made on basic plumbing. We have a somewhat
demanding, but tractable, list[1] of essential-and-major changes to get
through implementing.
I don't think many (any?) of us want to fundamentally alter the
character of the language, so twiddling the nominal/structural bit on
records is an experiment we can run a bit later (few months from now)
when larger portions of the landscape have filled in.
-Graydon
[1] https://github.com/graydon/rust/issues?milestone=3
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
