> Yes, and I don't have a solution for that. Well, it's not like we don't already stumble here a bit, what with requiring ::<> instead of just <>. Not sure how much other people value the consistency here.
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Corey Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Benjamin Striegel > <[email protected]> wrote: > > First of all, why a new keyword? Reusing `for` here would be totally > > unambiguous. :P And also save us from creating the precedent of > multi-word > > keywords. > > > > I'd be equally happy with for instead of forall. > > > Secondly, currently Rust has a philosophy of use-follows-declaration > (i.e. > > the syntax for using something mirrors the syntax for declaring it). This > > would eliminate that. > > > > Yes, and I don't have a solution for that. >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
