Hi, as a not contributing listen-in,
i would like to voice that source and sink share the same initial and
therefore source and drain might be more useful.
I hope i didn't offend by voicing my opinion,
keep up the good work!
Regards Don
Am 24.01.2014 04:54, schrieb Brandon Sanderson:
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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Thu Jan 23 2014 at 7:18:11 PM, Tony Arcieri
<[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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
