Ohhh, I see. Still, it's pretty counterintuitive if vectors are being presented as _though_ they are first class (which I do like, due to reducing the number of entities that have to be explained.) Not sure what a good alternative would be, but this did nail me once before I figured it out.
Glenn Patrick Walton <[email protected]> wrote: On 07/15/2012 06:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: > 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.) Right. That's because all type parameters have to match against first-class types. If @T could match against @[U], then you'd be able to name a second-class type (namely [U]) in isolation via the parameter T, making it not second-class anymore. Patrick !DSPAM:50036db4137201336712104!
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
