On 1/31/14 8:24 PM, Eric Summers wrote:
I’m new to Rust (three days), but I thought the mut syntax felt odd in a few
places. Type definitions in particular because it is one of the few places
that require padding. Is there any reason a symbol isn’t used for mutability
instead? Forgive me if I’m too naive in Rust.
With a symbol you can drop the space:
fn drop(&mut self) { .. } <-> fn drop(&!self)
The only other common situation I've seen so for that require the space are
lifetime annotations. Maybe there is an alternate form for those?
The symbol could probably be extended to let:
let mut a = 0; <-> let !a = 0; <-> let a: !u32 = 0;
or maybe mutable setter;
let a := 0;
As other said, I think ‘var' sugar feels against the design of the language.
let !a = 0 is ambiguous with macros. (cf. `let! a = 0;`)
Patrick
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
