On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Jesse Luehrs <d...@tozt.net> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:30:59AM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Jesse Luehrs <d...@tozt.net> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 06:23:55PM +0100, curtis_ovid_poe wrote: > > > > Is the idea of deprecating alias and excludes just speculation, or is > > > > this the plan for the future? > > > > > > It has always been my plan, but it's been a while since I discussed it > > > with anyone. > > > > > > > Why would we do that? Those are extremely useful features, and I'm > having > > a hard time visualizing a benefit to removing method aliasing and > exclusion. > > What do you use them for? >
One example would be an extension in providing a new native trait accessor type... (that I've had hanging out in an attic branch forever): https://gist.github.com/c29c165e1aacda7018a5 Aliasing allows me to trivially shunt one method aside and create a new one in its place w/o having to resort to method modifiers. -- Chris Weyl Ex astris scientia
