> Yes on (A); no on (B). You have to swap a value in of the appropriate type > (including constrained types), so there doesn't seem to be anything > inconsistent about it. In the case of hash tables, I was thinking we would > have a special "in_use" tag variant for this purpose.
Well, yes, I guess that'd work. But we'd be punching holes in our table (which can cause further unpredictable run-time errors on nested access -- which is common) and writing a bunch of extra code just to avoid bumping up a refcount. I'm not sure there's going to be a real win here. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
