Cannot this allocations be implicit to avoid sigils everywhere? Le 30 nov. 2013 22:26, "Patrick Walton" <pcwal...@mozilla.com> a écrit :
> 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 > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
