On 6/4/11 4:53 AM, Marijn Haverbeke wrote:
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.
We'll have to see. We can always have two "get"s -- one that copies the result and avoids these issues and one that doesn't, for temporary access.
Patrick _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
