> I'd honestly be ok with going back to vec<T> or vec<mut T> for the vector type and using [T] for the slice, to discourage this hazard.
I think this could be a win for clarity. There are enough potential use cases here that overloading [] doesn't seem to give all that much benefit. On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Patrick Walton <pwal...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 04/27/2012 03:15 PM, Niko Matsakis wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This is a post I recently put on my blog. I thought I'd post it to the >> mailing list as it pertains to our recent discussion on the syntax of >> vectors, slices, and so forth. I feel like I'm harping on this issue so >> I think it's the last thing I will write about it for a while. =) >> > > I like the idea of eliminating [T]/@ in favor of @[T]; it simplifies the > user-facing syntax and semantics a lot. > > On the other hand, I agree with Marijn that []T doesn't look as nice as > [T] (although Go is popularizing the former). [:]T is also strange-looking. > There's also the issue that users might use &[]T, which is almost never > useful, instead of the more-useful [:]T. I'd honestly be ok with going back > to vec<T> or vec<mut T> for the vector type and using [T] for the slice, to > discourage this hazard. > > Patrick > > ______________________________**_________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/rust-dev<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev> >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
