On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 08:29:17AM -0700, Patrick Walton wrote:
> If we did this, we wouldn't know whether to parse a pattern or an
> expression when starting a statement. This isn't fixable without
> trying to define some sort of cover grammar that covers both
> expressions and patterns, like ECMA
On 9/25/13 3:41 PM, Kevin Ballard wrote:
I believe the intention was to allow `mut` in the same places you
could put `ref` today in a pattern match.
Yes.
Patrick
___
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-de
> I believe the intention was to allow `mut` in the same places you could
put `ref` today in a pattern match.
I was also under this impression, though I've never seen it explicitly laid
out anywhere. Would be nice to see if the devs are on board with this
extension to the pattern grammar.
On Sep 25, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Jack Moffitt wrote:
Miss it? Did it ever work? This seems like a bug though. Mutability is
inherited, so without this there's no way to do mutable destructuring
bind right?
>>> Apparently it went away in commit f9b54541 and the workaround used there
>>>
>>> Miss it? Did it ever work? This seems like a bug though. Mutability is
>>> inherited, so without this there's no way to do mutable destructuring
>>> bind right?
>> Apparently it went away in commit f9b54541 and the workaround used there
>> is `let (foo, bar) = ...; let mut foo = foo;` etc.
>>
>
On Sep 25, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Benjamin Herr wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 15:23 -0600, Jack Moffitt wrote:
>>> (I miss `let mut (a, b) = ...`!)
>>
>> Miss it? Did it ever work? This seems like a bug though. Mutability is
>> inherited, so without this there's no way to do mutable destructuring
>>
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 15:23 -0600, Jack Moffitt wrote:
> > (I miss `let mut (a, b) = ...`!)
>
> Miss it? Did it ever work? This seems like a bug though. Mutability is
> inherited, so without this there's no way to do mutable destructuring
> bind right?
>
> jack.
Apparently it went away in commit
2:10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [rust-dev] Some suggestions of Rust language
Maybe if you were writing code like this:
let mut a = 1; let mut b = 2;
loop {
...
(a, b) = F();
...
}
(b, a)
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Benjamin Striegel
wrote:
> Is there a use case that necessitates such a
> (I miss `let mut (a, b) = ...`!)
Miss it? Did it ever work? This seems like a bug though. Mutability is
inherited, so without this there's no way to do mutable destructuring
bind right?
jack.
___
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 14:29 -0400, Benjamin Striegel wrote:
> Is there a use case that necessitates such a feature? The following
> code works today:
>
>
> let a = 1;
>
> let b = 2;
>
> let (a, b) = (b, a);
>
>
> Not sure why that wouldn't be sufficient.
Motivating toy example th
Maybe if you were writing code like this:
let mut a = 1; let mut b = 2;
loop {
...
(a, b) = F();
...
}
(b, a)
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Benjamin Striegel
wrote:
> Is there a use case that necessitates such a feature? The following code
> works today:
>
> let a = 1;
> l
Is there a use case that necessitates such a feature? The following code
works today:
let a = 1;
let b = 2;
let (a, b) = (b, a);
Not sure why that wouldn't be sufficient.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Marvin Löbel wrote:
> On 09/25/2013 06:37 PM, Diggory Hardy wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
On 09/25/2013 06:37 PM, Diggory Hardy wrote:
Hi,
On Wednesday 25 September 2013 08:29:17 Patrick Walton wrote:
On 9/25/13 6:32 AM, Alexander Sun wrote:
Multiple return values
if has a function like this:
fn addsub(x : int, y : int) -> (int, int) {
return (x+y,x-y);
}
them, this is
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
> On 9/25/13 6:32 AM, Alexander Sun wrote:
>
>> Embedded anonymous structure?
>>
> Embedded anonymous structure in Go is good idea, I think.
>>
>
> Not the way Go does it, where you can have method conflicts like C++
> multiple inheritance an
Hi,
On Wednesday 25 September 2013 08:29:17 Patrick Walton wrote:
> On 9/25/13 6:32 AM, Alexander Sun wrote:
> > Multiple return values
> > if has a function like this:
> >
> > fn addsub(x : int, y : int) -> (int, int) {
> >
> > return (x+y,x-y);
> >
> > }
> >
> > them, this is valid:
> >
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Patrick Walton wrote:
> Slice?
>> Provide first class support of array, slice(not borrowed pointer to
>> vector). And support slice operation, like a[0:5].
>>
>
> How is a slice different from a borrowed pointer to a vector? Note that
> you can take a borrowed poi
On 2013-09-25, at 17:29 , Patrick Walton wrote:
>
>> Multiple return values
>> if has a function like this:
>>
>> fn addsub(x : int, y : int) -> (int, int) {
>> return (x+y,x-y);
>> }
>>
>> them, this is valid:
>>
>> let (b,c) = addsub(x, y);
>>
>> but this is invalid;
>>
>> let b:int =0
On 9/25/13 6:32 AM, Alexander Sun wrote:
Ownership, Owned Box, Managed Box
What about hide the ownership, owned box, managed box to users? Just a
borrowed pointer and a dereferencing pointer, like Go.
This is contrary to the design goals of Rust. Go is a fully garbage
collected language and pr
I am not a language developer, just an user. I like Rust, so could I
please to give some suggestions about improve Rust?
Recently, I try to use Rust to build a GUI library prototype. Just
like wxWidget or SWT, wrap the native API(win32 and gtk+, cocoa in
plan if possible). At the meantime, I am wr
19 matches
Mail list logo
