On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Gábor Lehel <illiss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I very much agree with Patrick. Some aspects of this proposal are >> attractive, but it breaks some essential properties of the way methods >> currently work (and probably can't be adjusted to work around that >> without losing most of it attraction). >> > > The main cost would be having to import methods explicitly (or using a > glob), as Patrick notes. > Now I'm wondering, though: going with my proposal, if the module structure were just a little bit more fine-grained, I think you could achieve basically the same effect as the current system, if you wanted to. If the convention were to use a module to enclose a type together with its methods (which is already the case in many places), and you did a glob import of that module, you would get what you have now: the type and its methods would all come into scope. Except you could still import selectively, if you wanted to, or do things any other way, if you wanted to, and all of the "warts" I mentioned would still disappear. In a different crate, you could similarly create a module of "extension methods", which could be imported together or selectively, if you wanted to. I don't want to push this too hard if it's past the point of being productive, but I'm now even more convinced that this would be a beneficial change. Types should be types, grouping and scoping should be done with modules (Rust's modules are very capable), and traits should be used for type-based abstraction. I think it would work great. -- Your ship was destroyed in a monadic eruption.
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
