On 02/01/2014 02:59 PM, Benjamin Striegel 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.
Yeah, the existing solution is bad, and also rare. If changing the
declaration might happen then you might as well make another minor
change for consistency, possibly for the better.
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Corey Richardson <co...@octayn.net
<mailto:co...@octayn.net>> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Benjamin Striegel
<ben.strie...@gmail.com <mailto: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
