I think of it was "implementing a type" (that is, defining the methods
that are intrinsic to a type) vs "implementing a trait". It feels
pretty natural to me to think of it that way.
Niko
Patrick Walton wrote:
On 12/31/12 3:05 AM, Gareth Smith wrote:
Because they both start with the same keyword. Though perhaps this is
not significant.
Agreed, I considered this. There are a couple of reasons why I didn't
propose a different keyword:
1. Rust tries hard to reuse keywords in general, since everyone likes
a small set of keywords.
2. I didn't really like any of the obvious options. The most obvious
keyword to switch to would be "inst" to mirror Haskell and so forth,
but is "impl"/"inst" really less confusing? I suspect many programmers
would want to "implement" a trait and would choose "impl".
Patrick
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
