I like the idea (grepability) in theory, but 'for all' to me means that you do *not* monomorphise the type immediately. This is especially obvious when considering single function bounds and not trait bounds (but I guess there are no plans to support HoF so it does not matter anyway).
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Benjamin Striegel <ben.strie...@gmail.com>wrote: > > 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 <co...@octayn.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Benjamin Striegel >> <ben.strie...@gmail.com> 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 > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
