Interesting idea; in that case, one could string together any series of
functions - basically, `.` would become the equivalent of `|>` (or whatever
other name you want to call it). That is, instead of writing
`baz(bar(foo(x), y), z)` one could write `foo(x).bar(y).baz(z)`. This would
make it easier to write things in functional style, using the same syntax
as the object style.
It could be viewed as the natural complement for the `do` keyword, which
adds a last block parameter to the end of the function.
I'm less certain about giving up `impl Foo { ... }`, though - that is
useful for logically grouping, documenting and accessing functions (as in
`Foo::foo(...)`). But it seems we don't have to give it up, just make it
optional?
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Matthieu Monrocq <
matthieu.monr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see no reason for the restriction of "self". Why not simply say that any
> function can be called with "first_arg.func(...)" style ?
>
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
