On Jan 29, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Brian Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/29/2014 06:35 PM, Patrick Walton wrote: >> On 1/29/14 6:34 PM, Samuel Williams wrote: >>> Perhaps this has been considered already, but when I'm reading rust code >>> "let mut" just seems to stick out all over the place. Why not add a >>> "var" keyword that does the same thing? I think there are lots of good >>> and bad reasons to do this or not do it, but I just wanted to propose >>> the idea and see what other people are thinking. >> >> `let` takes a pattern. `mut` is a modifier on variables in a pattern. It is >> reasonable to write `let (x, mut y) = ...`, `let (mut x, y) = ...`, `let >> (mut x, mut y) = ...`, and so forth. >> >> Having a special "var" syntax would defeat this orthogonality. > > `var` could potentially just be special-case sugar for `let mut`. To what end? Users still need to know about `mut` for all the other uses of patterns. This would reserve a new keyword and appear to duplicate functionality for no gain. -Kevin
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
