I don't agree that the type of a function and the return type of a function
are the same thing (specifically, the type of the function contains the
return type). :) If nothing else, this would make the function signatures
of higher-order functions much harder to read IMO.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Patrick Walton <pwal...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 7/29/13 4:29 PM, Wojciech Miłkowski wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm observing rust development for some time, and I must say it slowly
>> encourages me to use it. Especially the progress from Perl-like syntax
>> to more sane and quiet form is enjoyable.
>> That said I wonder why the function definition has form:
>> fn name(var: type, ...) -> return_type {...}
>> instead of more unified:
>> fn name(var: type, ...): return_type {...}
>>
>> Is it constructed to mimic mathematical form f(x)->y or is there other
>> reason i.e. syntax ambiguity?
>>
>
> Personal preference of Graydon, I believe. This is one of the few
> decisions that has survived from Rust 0.1 :)
>
> I slightly prefer `:` to `->` but never enough to bring it up.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> 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
