Whoops, my bad, let x = 10 (should be easier to optimise) :D
On 30 January 2014 16:20, Samuel Williams <[email protected]>wrote: > What about constant folding? Surely let mut x = 10 is easier for the > compiler to optimise? > > > On 30 January 2014 16:18, Daniel Micay <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Samuel Williams >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I agree that it is syntactic salt and that the design is to discourage >> > mutability. I actually appreciate that point as a programmer. >> > >> > w.r.t. this specific issue: I think what concerns me is that it is >> quite a >> > high burden for new programmers (I teach COSC1xx courses to new >> students so >> > I have some idea about the level of new programmers). For example, you >> need >> > to know more detail about what is going on - new programmers would find >> that >> > difficult as it is one more concept to overflow their heads. >> >> Either way, Rust is going to warn when there is unnecessary mutability. >> >> > Adding "var" as a keyword identically maps to new programmer's >> expectations >> > from JavaScript. Writing a program entirely using "var" wouldn't cause >> any >> > problems right? >> >> Rust has block scope, so `var` would match what `let` does in JavaScript. >> >> > But, could be optimised more (potentially) if using "let" for immutable >> parts. >> >> It really doesn't introduce any potential optimizations. >> > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
