On 1/26/2012 5:41 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
A bit opposed to both, sadly. I quite like picking up impls "by
accident" via "import foo::*", and dislike the aesthetic of ->.
Is "import impl foo::*" bad?
Depends what it means! Does it pull in the same stuff that "import
foo::*" pulls in, in addition to impls? Or just impls? IWO, do I have to
double the number of boilerplate lines to get access to foo-and-its-methods?
Is the ambiguity between field-access and method-call really biting in
actual cases? Users really seem to adore '.' as a sub-component
accessor. We even have people wanting us to go back to '.' for
module-separator :)
Yes, I found it very confusing yesterday, when trying to figure out "."
with a closure. It's also screwing up our error messages.
What was the error message? I'm not trying to be a pain, just concerned
that a proliferation of -> symbols through much of our code will read
poorly, and want to try to avoid.
-Graydon
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
