Neither is perfect. There is definitely room for improvement in both
options.
On Jul 29, 2013 9:08 PM, "Brendan Zabarauskas" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This would make function signatures harder to read in some instances,
> particularly when using closures and higher-order functions:
>
> let f: fn(T): T = …;
>
> fn hof<T>(x: T, f: fn(T): T): fn(T): T { … }
>
> Compare to the current syntax:
>
> let f: fn(T) -> T = …;
>
> fn hof<T>(x: T, f: fn(T) -> T) -> fn(T) -> T { … }
>
> ~Brendan
>
> On 30/07/2013, at 9:29 AM, Wojciech Miłkowski <[email protected]> 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?
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > W.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rust-dev mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rust-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
