This all seems a bit silly. A channel *is*, conceptually, a tuple of a sender and a receiver. If I call Chan::new(), that's what I expect to get. And Chan::open() doesn't map to anything that's as intuitive.
Is naming really all that's left to argue about? How does everyone feel about the semantics of the proposal? On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Strahinja Markovic <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Thu Jan 23 2014 at 7:18:11 PM, Tony Arcieri <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have a crazy idea... >> >> Channel::open() >> > > That's a better name for the function, agreed. > > >> >> >> https://lh3.ggpht.com/-WpuYGqCEHDg/UBznzaqReKI/AAAAAAAAB_0/0Vc8_mnnhqw/s1600/mind-blown.gif >> >> -- >> Tony Arcieri >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
