None of these look like allocation.
Patrick
Kevin Ballard <ke...@sb.org> wrote:
>I am very saddened by the fact that we're apparently reserving `new` as
>a keyword, and even more by the fact that the proposed placement new
>syntax is `new(foo) bar`. This looks exactly like C++, and it goes
>against the strong precedence we already have of using new() as a
>static function for types. Path::init("foo") looks extremely wrong to
>me.
>
>Surely there's another syntax we can use for placement new that doesn't
>involve reserving `new` as a keyword? Here's a few random ideas (where
>"val" is the value expression and "place" is the place expression):
>
>~in(place) val
>in(place) ~val
>~val in place (assuming this isn't somehow ambiguous)
>~~val in place (the existing ~~val would have to be written ~(~val))
>~~(place) val (the existing ~~val would have to be written ~(~val))
>~<place> val
>~=place val
>~>place val (this looks like an arrow pointing to the place)
>~>(place) val
>
>Personally I think `~in(place) val` is perfectly fine. It's not the
>prettiest of syntaxes, but placement new should be very rare, and this
>allows us to avoid reserving `new` and continue to use ~ as the
>allocation operator.
>
>-Kevin
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rust-dev mailing list
>Rust-dev@mozilla.org
>https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity._______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
