> Since multiple arguments (and especially the hidden-type 'self' argument, > and closure environments) seem to require this &0 .. &n annotation scheme, I > think that sort of violates the aesthetic-preference argument motivating you > here. To my eyes, blocks *definitely* look better,
So here we have an &, or a &1, in the accessor definition (once), versus wrapping your computation in a block, on every single use of the accessor. > Could you elaborate on why accessors-by-blocks are un-composable? Calling them uncomposable was too strong, I guess. If you need to access two data structures, you'll be passing a block that closes over A to the accessor of B, and then calling the accessor of A inside that block with yet another block. Let's leave my code in for now, and play with both approaches. I am quite confident that access-by-reference will prove to be more pleasant. > They seem to work well in languages that use them, no? I've never used a language that does this. Examples? _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
