On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Patrick Walton <pcwal...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/13 5:05 AM, Sanghyeon Seo wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> I'm pretty nervous about performing auto-ref on function arguments, though,
> *especially* `&mut` auto-ref. For some reason I expect that this:
>
> let mut a = ~["x"];
> a.push("hi");
>
> may mutate `a`, while:
>
> let mut a = ~["y"];
> push(a, b);
>
> will *not* mutate `a`. Do others have the same expectation?
>
I do, and I agree a lot with Niko's arguments from the meeting. I
agree that &* is a bit ugly, but I prefer the ugly syntax to the
ambiguity. I don't find Kevin's argument particularly convincing;
those changes can make your code fail to compile, but *not* to
transparently behave differently (simply by changing the types of the
args).
I'm in favor of the proposal. What we have now isn't that great and
moving to an alternative is good, even if it's not the best. We can
move to something better later.
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
