post) over the next few days. The main thing is that,
today, we are limited to one---it is *almost* always enough, but not quite,
which is why I'd like to generalize to multiple for advanced uses.
Niko
James Boyden wrote:
Upon re-reading my message, I realised I could have explained
my
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 1:21 PM, James Gao gaoz...@gmail.com wrote:
and how about these two case:
a) fn fooT1: Ord, Eq, Hash; T2: Ord, ::Eq (...) {...}
I think that a problem with using semicolon as the delimiter between
trait type parameters (i.e., between `T1: X` and `T2: Y`) is that it
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Graydon Hoare gray...@mozilla.com wrote:
Some references to the lurking plan here:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2011-November/000999.html
Firstly, I'd like to express my appreciation for the clear reasoning
in this linked post.
I found the
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Niko Matsakis n...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
First off, I echo Brian's thank you for both the kind words and the well
thought out e-mail. Here are some far less organized thoughts in response.
Hi Niko,
Thanks for your detailed response. (It's funny, both you and
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Niko Matsakis n...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On 9/11/12 12:54 AM, James Boyden wrote:
I would also argue that such a single-'let'-out-front concession
should not be applied to struct patterns: One of the key benefits
of introducing 'let' in struct patterns
Hi Rust-dev,
To start with, here's the three-sentence summary of my post:
I propose 2 minor syntax alterations that very-slightly extend the
existing let keyword in a logical way, to improve the syntax of
variable binding in destructuring pattern matching and closures.
By improve, I mean that
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Gareth Smith
garethdanielsm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi James,
The pattern matching syntax is pretty consistent with Haskell, Ocaml, SML
and similar-ish statically typed functional languages. I like it because it
is concise and because a pattern is syntactically
Hi Brian,
Thanks so much for your detailed reply.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Brian Anderson bander...@mozilla.com wrote:
I'll mention that both the pattern matching and closure syntaxes are very
cramped, with a lot of competing requirements.
Yes, I can imagine. In particular, I imagine
