Lol I like 'lt
Somehow it makes me laugh compared to the ML usage, but I like it. Perhaps
it plays off my brain's wiring for reading something like "I think &'s are
pretty". (Or for reading "brain's", for that matter.)
I like the {lt} approach ok, too, although not as much. I hadn't noticed
that the ambiguity in your original Option 8 went away when we put the
lifetime in the angle brackets, even if we then used curlies. But yeah, it
feels heavier.
Dean
From: Niko Matsakis <n...@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:44 PM
To: Dean Thompson <deansherthomp...@gmail.com>
Cc: <rust-dev@mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: [rust-dev] "intimidation factor" vs target audience
Dean Thompson wrote:
>
> Personally, though, I find myself increasingly attracted to the idea of
> having a consistent notation for writing a lifetime everywhere one
> appears, independently of the & symbol. (/lt/ is the only such notation
> I've found yet that seems reasonable.)
I like this idea too, I just don't like /lt/ for that role.
Maybe `'`? (shades of ML)
&'lt Foo
Foo<'lt>
That actually doesn't look half bad to me.
Maybe `.`?
&.lt Foo
Foo<.lt>
I don't like Foo<.lt>, but &.lt Foo and Foo<lt> might be ok, though it
doesn't adhere to the principle (in that lifetime names are just like any
other identifier).
Another option:
&{lt} Foo
Foo<{lt}>
But the latter form feels pretty sigil heavy.
Niko
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
