On 3/23/14 2:19 PM, Ziad Hatahet wrote:
You wouldn't probably use this for each and every method, but what it
gives you is Go-style duck typing.
Sure you can define a trait, but what if the struct you to pass to your
function does not implement it? I guess you would have to implement a
wrapper around it manually then.
I don't think Go-style duck typing turns out to be that useful in
practice to solve this problem, because the chances that two
independently-developed libraries that wanted to expose some
functionality on their object, say, `Munge()`, would give the function
exactly the same name and give exactly the same types to its arguments,
(in the same order!) is astronomically small.
In reality the primary benefit of Go-style duck typing is the ability to
avoid having to type the name of the trait you're implementing at the
implementation site. What you give up for this is the ability to provide
extension methods: i.e. implementation of a trait for a type *outside*
of the package that defined the type. This is a huge downside, and I
don't think it's worth it on the whole; this is why Rust's traits are
designed the way they are.
Patrick
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
