Let me ask another way: what's wrong with thinking of ~ just as meaning "allocate to the heap and subject to move semantics"? When would that simplification bite me in the ass regarding owned boxes vs strs/vecs?
I get that I should very rarely want that for things that aren't dynamic containers or recursive data structures. But beyond that, am I ever going to get myself in trouble not remembering the details of the difference between how ~T works vs ~[T]? On Thursday, November 7, 2013, Daniel Micay wrote: > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Jason Fager <jfa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Can you speak a little to the practical differences between owned boxes >> and ~[T]/~str? How does the difference affect how I should use each? > > > I wrote the section on owned boxes in the tutorial currently in master, so > I would suggest reading that. It's very rare for there to be a use case for > an owned box outside of a recursive data structure or plugin system (traits > as objects). > > The coverage in the tutorial of vectors/strings is not only lacking in > depth but is also *incorrect*, so I understand why there's a lot of > confusion about them. > > Vectors/strings are containers, and aren't connected to owned boxes any > more than HashMap/TreeMap/TrieMap. I would prefer it if the syntactic sugar > didn't exist and we just had generic container literals, because it seems > to end up causing a lot of confusion. >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
