+1
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:40:37PM -0700, Lindsey Kuper wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Wojciech Miłkowski <milkow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> There's long precedent for `->` in function type signatures in, among
> other languages, Haskell, ML, and OCaml.
>
> In Rust, I like it better than `:` for reasons of readability -- it
> visually splits up the argument and return types nicely. If it came
> to a vote, my vote would be to keep it.
>
> Lindsey
> _______________________________________________
> Rust-dev mailing list
> Rust-dev@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
