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
what about a private new() in the class, that returns the allocated
instance, and a public 'make' fn, with how many overloads you want, to
serve as a ctor. rustc can require that atleast one 'make' fn will exist
for a class, and that it returns the same object that came from new().
(the user
In fact, Rust separates initialization from allocation. The OP was
correct that new might better be called an initializer, but I think that
ship has sailed---constructor is the generally accepted term for the
function which initiailizes the instance, for better or worse. Still,
for a class
Optional named parameters in function invocations could be a third option,
although of course that introduces a third inflexibility to consider. :P
So, which happens most often?
1) You create a class without any constructor besides property assignment,
and then later introduce a more substantial
On 4/12/12 7:45 AM, Benjamin Striegel wrote:
Optional named parameters in function invocations could be a third
option, although of course that introduces a third inflexibility to
consider. :P
So, which happens most often?
I suppose it's not only a question of what happens most often, but
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Niko Matsakis n...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
You would then create an instance of C using `C::create(...)`. The only
thing I am not sure about is how one declares the construction to be
private?
Have you guys read Bob Nystrom's notes about designing a safe
Based on a quick read, this sounds almost identical to what I proposed,
except that `construct()` would be the literal syntax.
Looks like a neat blog, thanks for the tip.
Niko
On 4/12/12 12:03 PM, Joe Groff wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Niko Matsakisn...@alum.mit.edu 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 can only agree, for a simple reason: the example is
I don't know about your use of the term constructor, but it is true that
new is often associated with the allocation side of things instead of the
initialization side of things in languages that make a distinction (many
don't). Go faces the opposite problem since people think of new as syntax
for
