As a corner case, for purposes of impls, will it still be the case that e.g. an impl for @T will not match a type like @[U], as I believe is the case now? That, and any similar quirks in the language, will be a kink in this presentation (which I am otherwise quite fond of.)
Glenn Patrick Walton <[email protected]> wrote: On 07/15/2012 05:22 PM, Graydon Hoare wrote: > You're just talking about documentation and nomenclature when you say > "presenting", yes? I mean, this sounds exactly like the semantics we > wound up with, just an adjustment to the way we talk about them. I'm > happy to try to consolidate terminology, just trying to make sure I'm > reading your email right. Yes. It's purely how we document things and talk about them; no language changes. Patrick _____________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev !DSPAM:50035bc624011243112093!
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
