> Yes it does. But it is still incomplete and a hack: look at all that > complexity to do what is > simple in ML. Rather it isn't simple .. its non-existent. There's no > machinery required > to make it work.
That doesn't really bother me. ML has a different set of trade-offs. It's a given that we will do some things worse than ML, and some things better. > What becomes insurmountable is when you want to change something and you CANT > because you have too many users. C++ is a good example of this. They screwed > up > a few things quite badly in ISO C++ and 201x can't fix them now. Its too late. > That's basically why I quit the committee: beyond recovery. Sure C++ is > useable .. > but it could have been a lot better. Well, this is an inevitability. Every successful project ends up with decisions the designers wish they could take back but can't. Which is not to say we shouldn't try to avoid making mistakes, so I should say I appreciate hearing your concern about multiple arity functions. Anyway, I think I probably took this conversation too meta, so I think I'll just step back. I don't think I buy that the expressivity of unary-only is vital, but I'm not an experienced enough implementor to know what the performance cost would be. And I think that's the key trade-off. Dave _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
