On 11/30/13 1:17 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
Especially since the replacement convention, as seen in PR #10697, is pretty bad (namely, using ::init() instead of ::new(); init() to me seems as though it should merely initialize a value, not construct a new value. Heck, the old Path convention of using Path(..) is better than Path::init(..)).
Honestly, I'm not in love with `init` either. I don't find it particularly intuitive, and alternatives are welcome. But I do think that using a sigil for allocation and the lack of placement new are problems that needs fixing.
Patrick _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
