'glob' is a term usually associated with text matching. I think using 'glob' for 'global' would be confusing. On Mar 17, 2013 12:42 PM, "Marvin Löbel" <loebel.mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 'static' vs 'global': > - 'static' would feel more familiar for C/C++ people, but is also way to > overloaded there. > - 'global' would be more unfamiliar, but also concise: 'This thing has > global scope or lifetime'. > > One thing I don't like about 'static' and 'global' is that they are longer > and harder to pronounce compared to 'const' (by not much, granted). > > So how about 'glob' ? > >> I like 'static' more than 'global' or 'const' for lifetime names, and >> I agree that const and static should be unified into a single name. >> >> 'static' scares me a bit because of C's use of it in several somewhat >> unrelated contexts, and so the name feels a bit polluted in my mind. >> >> But I still like it best. >> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Benjamin Striegel >> <ben.strie...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'll speak up in favor of ditching both "const" and "static" for >>> "global". >>> >>> global foo: int = 1; >>> global mut bar: int = 1; >>> &'global baz >>> >>> (Though not sure exactly what the 'static region is, does that last one >>> make >>> sense?) >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Graydon Hoare<gray...@mozilla.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> At today's meeting we had a a discussion about two issues that >>>> intersect, oddly, at a particular point of the syntax. The two issues >>>> are: >>>> >>>> - Removing the 'static lifetime-name -- currently used to denote >>>> the lifetime of consts -- since the only other use of the word >>>> (static fn ...) is going away when we finish with explicit-self; >>>> renaming it (probably) to 'const since that's the word used to >>>> introduce consts! >>>> >>>> - Adding mutable globals (unsafe-to-access, but needed in some >>>> corner cases for mutexes and such). This is an old bug >>>> (two years! >>>> https://github.com/mozilla/**rust/issues/553<https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/553>) >>>> that >>>> we've long assumed we'd have to implement eventually. >>>> >>>> We agreed to do the former (rename 'static to 'const) and collapse all >>>> uses of the word "const" to mean this "read-only-memory" thing. But then >>>> when pushing around possible syntaxes for mutable globals, such as the >>>> following not-so-charming options: >>>> >>>> let mut x : T = v; // like in functions, but different since >>>> the RHS must be a const and can refer to >>>> values declared-after it. >>>> >>>> const mut x : T = v; // adding a modifier to 'const' but one that >>>> reads somewhat absurdly: "constant mutable"? >>>> >>>> unsafe mut x : T = v; // more random choices... >>>> >>>> We stumbled on the _opposite_ possibility for const-vs-static: maybe we >>>> should be retiring the "const" keyword and standardizing on "static", >>>> for both mutable and immutable. The following cases would then fall out: >>>> >>>> static x : T = v; // constant init, immutable, like const today >>>> >>>> static mut x : T = v; // constant init, mutable, unsafe to access >>>> >>>> With values in that scope having 'static lifetime, and the word "const" >>>> no longer appearing anywhere in the language. >>>> >>>> There are other options, probably, that we did not consider. Some people >>>> suggested putting "global" in there instead of "static". Some suggested >>>> going back to "var" rather than "let". >>>> >>>> This is an intentional (brief) request for a little syntax >>>> bikeshed-discussion to see if anything else occurs to anyone, or if >>>> anyone has strong reactions / preferences / thoughts to any of the above >>>> options. We recognize that this does not _exactly_ align with the >>>> meanings of the highly-overloaded words "const" or "static" in C/C++, >>>> but think that there's some keyword and concept overlap here that can >>>> probably be minimized. >>>> >>>> (Maybe reply for only a couple days and we'll summarize opinions and >>>> pick something thereafter. No need for it to drag on forever.) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> -Graydon >>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>> Rust-dev mailing list >>>> Rust-dev@mozilla.org >>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/rust-dev<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Rust-dev mailing list >>> Rust-dev@mozilla.org >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/rust-dev<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >> Rust-dev mailing list >> Rust-dev@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/rust-dev<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev> >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/rust-dev<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev> >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
