On 04/21/2012 10:28 AM, gasche wrote:
I've been wondering about a problem tightly related to named
Re. function types: if you consider those parameter-passing structures
as "first class" (which does necessarily mean that they are convenient
to use, for example if they're not adressable they will be
less flexible), the natural choice is to have a family of types for
them. Those types could come with restrictions and an unspoken kinding
discipline, so that for example they cannot be used to instantiate
type variables, maybe cannot be nested, etc.
That's the main reason why I think one should think of such structures
as real structures rather than syntactic sugar; it forces you to have
a proper design for types and other aspects.
There are several issues with going to tupled arguments:
* We'd still need formal parameters for C interoperability. At the ABI
level, a single-argument function applied to a 3-ary tuple is very
different from a function with 3 arguments.
* It prohibits us from having optional parameters in the future (at
least, not without some very hairy typechecking).
* I don't know how to make the block loop syntax work.
Patrick
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
