On Apr 10, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Masklinn wrote:
> I was reading
> http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2012/04/09/rusts-object-system/
> today, and saw the description of the classes definition.
>
> Next to it, Nicholas notes:
>> I am not fond of the definition of constructors, in particular
>
> I can only agree, for a simple reason: the example is that of an
> initializer, but uses naming generally used for actual constructors.
Apart from the naming, I always found constructors as used in C, Java, Python,
etc. to be quite a bit verbose and tedious. I think Dylan's got this about
right: You'd just note whether the value should be initialized with a default
value or must appear in the constructor. Consider:
class colored_point {
let x: int = 0,
y: int = 0;
let color: color init-required;
fn abs() -> int { sqrt(x*x+y*y) }
}
And using it like this:
let p1 = point(color: red); //0,0
let p2 = point(color: blue, y: 2); //0,2
let p3 = point(color: black, x: 3, y: 5) //3,5
let p4 = point(x: 5) //compile time error: "color" is missing as constructor
argument
Of course, you can always supply your own constructor for more complicated
stuff. But 95% of the time, this is very concise and helpful.
On the other hand, I'm not sure whether Rust has or wants to have keyword
arguments for functions...
Cheers,
Kosta
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
