What I was specifically curious about is why you seem to be against the usage of the `Str` trait as a bound on the argument to the `captures` method.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Kevin Ballard <ke...@sb.org> wrote: > On May 27, 2014, at 6:05 AM, Benjamin Striegel <ben.strie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The use of taking <S: Str> is for taking things like &[S], where you > want to take both &str and String (such as in the other post about > getops()). > > I wouldn't be bothered with leaving the API as-is, but I don't understand > where this guideline is coming from. Can you elaborate? > > > I don't know if there's any authoritative source for this, but it's been > suggested in the past for other APIs. The basic issue is that &[String] > cannot be freely converted to &[&str]; you need to allocate a new Vec for > that. So if you have a &[String] and try to call an API that takes a > &[&str] then you're doing extra work just to satisfy the type system. But > the function in question doesn't actually need &[&str], it just needs a > slice of things it can convert to &str. So if it takes <S:Str> &[S] then > you can hand it your &[String] without conversion, or you can hand it a > &[&str], and it will work with both. > > This doesn't necessarily mean you need to use <S: Str> &[S] everywhere. > But it's a nice thing to do if you think about it. > > -Kevin >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
