I like the way this handles all sorts of "trivial casts". There seems to be a downside in that "inherited" struct field access becomes very noisy. Perhaps it would be possible to unify this with an anonymous fields syntax to get the best of both worlds?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Vadim Chugunov <vadi...@gmail.com> wrote: > By the way, I didn't see any discussion of the HasPrefix/Coercible > proposal<https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/9912#issuecomment-36073562>in > the workweek minutes. Did anybody bring it up at all? > > Vadim > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Oren Ben-Kiki <o...@ben-kiki.org> wrote: > >> I can't help but feel that forcing the "single inheritance of fast field >> access" and "inheritance of trait functions" into one mechanism would be >> regrettable. >> >> Would https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/10491 address all the >> requirements? If not, why? >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Brian Anderson >> <bander...@mozilla.com>wrote: >> >>> The downsides you list are all more or less applicable to this design, >>> indeed. We are seeing real requirements in real code that indicates that >>> the current abstraction facilities provided by Rust are efficient enough >>> for certain demanding use cases (the DOM in particular). >>> >>> Here are the identified requirements: >>> >>> tree of types (single inheritance) >>> downcasting >>> thin pointers >>> cheap field access >>> easy upcasting >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
