such a flurry of activity here :-D
I saw a few things I liked, in the felix language (and some that are
above my head for now.)
Do you think they fit rust well or not?
one is reverse application.
it's actually logical and might simplify things.
(similar to extension methods in c#)
there are
On 4/14/12 8:07 AM, Kobi Lurie wrote:
such a flurry of activity here :-D
I saw a few things I liked, in the felix language (and some that are
above my head for now.)
Do you think they fit rust well or not?
one is reverse application.
it's actually logical and might simplify things.
So this would basically mean that a function like:
fn wtever(foo: int, bar: str) { ... }
could be called as either:
wtever(1, hello); // tuple syntax
wtever{foo: 1, bar: hello}; // record syntax
Not sure how I feel about invoking a function using a record literal, its'
a little bit elegant
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Niko Matsakis n...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
I am not a big fan of the `if` syntax. Or at least I don't mind our current
one and it is nicely unambiguous. However, I really like alt with arrow
syntax. I find the current one quite unreadable, particularly for long
I wrote up an introduction to rustdoc.
http://brson.github.com/rust/2012/04/14/how-to-rustdoc/
___
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
On Apr 10, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Masklinn wrote:
I was reading
http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2012/04/09/rusts-object-system/
today, and saw the description of the classes definition.
Next to it, Nicholas notes:
I am not fond of the definition of constructors, in particular
I
