On 1/26/12 6:10 PM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
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?
One thing: I think a lot of the uses of record type + impl in our code base might be better phrased as classes. This would obviate the need to pull in an implementation for type "foo" most of the time. It does strike me as somewhat non-obvious where methods are coming from today, particularly when "foo::*" is used.
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.
The error message in question says something like "no method implementation found", even in cases where there is clearly no method call. It ought to be changed, probably to something like "no field or method found".
As for "." vs "->", I don't have a very strong opinion. I somewhat like that fields and methods would be in disjoint namespaces, but I can also see a counter argument that "->" is not as pretty.
Niko _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
