On 2013-11-20, at 18:27, Patrick Walton <pcwal...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 11/19/13 9:42 PM, Tommi wrote:
>> Our problem is that, given let arg: ~A;, seeing only foo(arg) in code
>> doesn't tell us whether arg is moved or borrowed. The proposed solution
>> is that auto-borrowing in that context would be deprecated and thus
>> would require an explicit borrowing: foo(&*arg). Now, given that it
>> seems that the upcoming UFCS would simply re-write arg.foo() to
>> foo(arg), it would mean that seeing only arg.foo() in code doesn't tell
>> us whether arg is moved or borrowed. Thus, the proposed solution would
>> fix only half of the problem.
>
> Again, I don't see this as an argument against the proposal. The dot operator
> is always magical. Magic on one place doesn't justify magic everywhere.
>
> Patrick
>
The goal of the proposal is to disambiguate code by forcing programmers to
write foo(&*arg) instead of foo(arg). But I claim that the proposal will at
least partly fail to achieve that goal because programmers will simply resort
to writing arg.foo() rather than foo(&*arg), and we finish where we started.
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
