Would it not be possible to have "new" be a keyword, yet not a reserved word (since they are not the same thing). This leaves the possibility of using it as a method name (e.g. Struct::new()), while still using it as an operator.
-- Ziad On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 1:07 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller < [email protected]> wrote: > On 11/30/13 10:01 AM, Kevin Ballard wrote: > > `new` isn't self-documenting. It's merely consistent with C++, but > > consistency with C++ cannot be considered self-documentation because > > there are a great many programmers out there who have never touched C++ > > (or any language with a `new` operator). To someone who hasn't > > encountered `new` before, an equally-valid interpretation of `new Foo` > > would be to construct a `Foo` value by invoking a standard initializer, > > returning it by-value. > > I believe that Patrick's argument is that the primary target of Rust is > people who are already familiar with C++. To them, `new` will be > self-documenting. Programmers who are not familiar with `new` (who are > getting rare these days) will still need to learn a new construct, just > as they would with sigils. > > I do not have a very strong opinion, but I believe that `new` is indeed > a good way to astonish the least amount of newcomers. > > Cheers, > David > > -- > David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD > Performance Team, Mozilla > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
