On 7/24/14 3:46 PM, Gregor Cramer wrote: > Probably in this case it might be a solution to move pow() into a trait, but > I'm speaking about a general problem. Rust 1.0 will be released, and someone > is developing a new module for version 1.1. But some of the functions in 1.0 > are inadequate for the new module, how to solve this without changing > the API
If the signature is wrong and we mistakenly freeze it, we can just introduce a new function with a different name. > in 1.1? I think that function overloading may help in some cases, but the > problem with inappropriate footprints remains. In my opinion this > thing with the footprints (reference or not if the real type is unknown - > that's why the concept with 'const' in C++ exists) is a conceptual design > issue, but probably I do not yet fully understand Rust. Overloading only helps some simple cases, and adds more complexity than it's worth (IMO). The problem with C++ isn't that it doesn't have enough features. Rust is deliberately omitting some features from C++ that don't pull their weight. Overloading is one of them. Patrick _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
