Maybe we can borrow some inspiration from the haskell pipes library?
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Vadim <[email protected]> wrote: > Well maybe then channel() -> (SendEnd, RecvEnd) ? Or, channel() -> > (Source, Drain) ? > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Brian Anderson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 01/13/2014 10:15 PM, Liigo Zhuang wrote: >> >>> People should rethink the Chan api that Chan::new() does not returns a >>> value of type Chan (instead, a tuple), which is strange, and inconsistent >>> with other Type::new(). >>> >>> >> Agree, though I haven't heard any great suggestions yet. The core problem >> is that there are three different entities involved: the sending end, the >> recieving end, and the thing that represents the entire channel, and they >> all need different names. The best I've heard is `pipe() -> (Port, Chan)`, >> but I would rather call the whole thing a channel and have a different name >> for the sender. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
