On Friday, 2 May 2014 at 18:32:13 UTC, Dylan Knutson wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this seems really similar to
how Rust does owned pointers and move semantics. Or is there a
large conceptual difference between the two that I'm missing?
There is some similarity, but Rust system has a bit more
capabilities. These extra capability come at great increase in
complexity, so I don't think it is worth it.
I believe that the issues that people are bringing up with bad
interaction with UFCS, and losing isolated data after passing
it to a function, are managed in Rust with the notion of a
borrowed pointers. Perhaps something analogous to this could
accompany the `isolated` idea?
Yes, rust handle this with burrowed pointers. You can also handle
this by :
- Passing data back and forth (via argument, and then return it
so the callee get it back).
- Using a wrapper of some kind.
I don't think getting all the menagerie of Rust pointer types is
a good thing. They certainly allows for a lot, but once again,
come at great complexity cost. If most of it can be achieved with
much lower complexity, that is a win.
