I agree with the `box` name, it's far less jarring than `new (1+1)`.
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Tim Kuehn <tku...@cmu.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 8:04 AM, spir <denis.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/01/2013 02:51 AM, Florian Zeitz wrote: >> >>> If I may chime in here. >>> I agree with Kevin that the different semantics of `new` are more likely >>> to create confusion, than alleviate it. >>> >>> Personally I would suggest calling this operator `box`, since it "boxes" >>> its argument into a newly allocated memory box. >>> >>> After all, these are different semantics from C++'s `new` (and also Go's >>> `make` AFAICT), therefore, presuming that a sigil is not a sufficient >>> indicator of a non-stack allocation, using an unprecedented keyword >>> seems the way to go to me. >>> >> >> +++ to all 3 points >> >> Denis >> > > > I, too, am in favor of the `box` proposal. Short, intuitive, not > already commonly used. What's not to like? > > Cheers, > Tim > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
