Another point in favor of this plan is that it would eliminate the need to
put type parameters directly after the `impl`, which to be honest *is*
pretty weird and inconsistent with the rest of the language. But I'm still
not sure how I feel about the look of it:
for <T: Clone+Eq, U> fn foo(t: T, u: U) -> (T, U) {
If you choose *not* to wrap after the type parameters there, you're really
obscuring what the heck you're trying to declare.
Heck, maybe what we're really asking for is for the ability to have
"generic blocks" within which type parameters can be declared once:
for <T: Clone+Eq, U> {
fn foo(t: T, u: U) -> (T, U) {
...but that's even *more* boilerplate!
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 5:59 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
