I wasn't saying the implementation sounded freaky. I was just imagining looking at a 30,000 line Rust source file with large fn definitions and trying to figure out whether each one is a block with interesting side effects through the mutable closure or not.
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Marijn Haverbeke <[email protected]> wrote: > > The idea that a fn (no closure) could implicitly turn into a block > (mutable > > closure) seemed freaky when I read the tutorial. > > There is no actual allocation going on -- the function pointer is > paired with a null environment pointer, and that's the closure. You > pay nothing, and since a (non-closing) fn can't do anything that a > closure couldn't do, I'm not sure why you'd call this freaky. >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
