----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin Cantu" <[email protected]> > To: "Marijn Haverbeke" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 4:06:07 AM > Subject: Re: [rust-dev] names needed for function types > > So, if Rust did away with block, renaming block to fn, would the > behavior of fn definitions be preserved? Could the unified fn become > a type that could sometimes be used in places requiring a sendfn or a > lambda, but not always??
I think named fn's would not have a type. When you take their value it creates whichever function type is needed. > > Earlier, I was imagining a hierarchy like fn < sendfn < lambda < > block, where it would seem logical to just knock it down to fn < > lambda < block. But there are things I have to learn about sendfn vs. > lambda... For a long time I also imagined a complete ordering, but it's difficult to achieve. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
