I would expect Channel::new() to create a channel object that either lets me send and receive, or lets me get a source and sink to send and receive with. Borrow rules may prevent this, but my point is that Channel::new() would generally be expected to return a struct, and not a tuple. On Jan 23, 2014 7:29 PM, "Benjamin Striegel" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
