On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:20:06PM +0100, Marijn Haverbeke wrote: > > 2. The dot after the nullary tag. In general I want to write a nullary tag > > a LOT > > more often than I want to write a wildcard binder, so I feel like this is > > the > > wrong way for this choice to go, but I'll understand if this is a decided > > issue > > already. > > I agree the dot is problematic, but I'm *very* skeptical about your > assertion that you're writing more nullary tag patterns than binders. > At least in the compiler, I think we see at least ten times more > binders than nullary tags.
Sorry, I meant wildcard bindings at the top level of a match only. I vastly more
often mean:
alt thing {
some(...) { ... }
none. { ... }
}
than:
alt thing {
some(...) { ... }
none { ... }
}
That said, hmm. Asking for this is making me start to worry that anything we did
change would make the syntax inconsistent, since I use non-top-level match
bindings way more often than nullary tags.
> > 4. I wish a lot more of the standard library was object-oriented. I realize
> > this
> > is somewhat of a slippery slope, but writing 'vec::len(thing)' is less nice
> > (to
> > me) than thing.len(). I think that things in the standard library that are
> > object-like (vec, str, ...) should be objects.
>
> This is part of the reason we're implementing interfaces (type classes).
Yay!
> > 5. I do not like the mk_foo()/obj foo {} idiom; it forces code another
> > tabstop
> > to the right.
>
> If interfaces work out, they'll probably replace the current obj system.
Double yay!
-- elly
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
