First, I am speaking for myself and not my employer. > The current proposal is to remove all autoref except for function > invocations and indexing operations. The method of creating &T from ~T > would be `let foo: &T = foo` or `&*foo`. Vectors and strings can't > currently benefit from the `&*foo` syntax, but they will hopefully be > able to do such once DST lands. In the meantime coercion via type > ascription will work and they also have `as_slice` methods.
I am against this proposal. As I understand, we will still keep autoref, autoborrow, etc. in method calls. So I don't think inconsistency argument holds. Neither does local readability argument. For local readability, which I agree is important, we have naming conventions naming methods taking &mut self with mut_* and methods taking by-value self with move_*. (Methods normally take &self.) And with better tooling, function signature should be locally accessible to the call site. I am not in the camp of less compiler magic. Some people seem to argue for removal of automatic coercions even in method calls, and I am very much against that idea. Someone's magic is other's convenience. As for #10504, perceived asymmetry seems to originate from the confusion of value and reference. As for inconsistency of automatic coercions, I propose we add automatic coercions to return expression, and any other places as we discover other missing places. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
